3 ms·

> Your explanation is one popular view of QM If you want to call the "Standard Model" merely one among many "popular views" then you can, but that's not what I

> Your explanation is one popular view of QM If you want to call the "Standard Model" merely one among many "popular views" then you can, but that's not what I'd call accurate. No one really disagrees with it. They just have different "interpretations" of why it holds true. Regarding your claim that electrons "interact with themselves", that's actually kind of misleading too. When electrons are "in the cloud" (pre-wave-collapse) they're pure probability and so none of them have an actual location in spacetime even if you had some infinitely fast camera to look. They simply don't exist at specific locations. They are genuinely everywhere at once, or stated even more correctly: they don't exist. Only the energy exists. The "Bohr Model" of the atom is correct insofar as a way to track energies in a classically relevant way, but in no way at all is it actually "real". There's no electrons flying around. Only electrons that have already stopped. They don't exist until measured.

tsimionescu 6y ago
> If you want to call the "Standard Model" merely one among many "popular views" then you can, but that's not what I'd call accurate. No one really disagrees with it. They just have different "interpretations" of why it holds true. The Standard Model doesn't contain an explanation for the measurement problem, which is essentially what your explanation is touching on, with the claim that everything is quantum and that the electron really doesn't have a definite position in space, rather than us being unable to know its position. Basically you stated a version of the Copenhagen Interpretation, which is very popular, but not the only way of making sense of the wave function. > When electrons are "in the cloud" (pre-wave-collapse) they're pure probability and so none of them have an actual location in spacetime even if you had some infinitely fast camera to look. They simply don't exist at specific locations. They are genuinely everywhere at once, or stated even more correctly: they don't exist. Only the energy exists. I think you're mixing things up a bit here. Before a measurement takes place, the movement of electrons is predicted by a deterministic equation, there is no probability. The electron is indeed (described by?) a wave function that has some amplitude at any point in space. My point about "interacting with themselves" was that the Schrodinger equation predicts the possibility of self-interference of a single electron's wave function, which is an observed effect. I think you're also over-selling the wave part of the duality and disregarding the particle part. The electron doesn't behave entirely like a wave, it also has particle-like properties, such as a fixed mass and a fixed charge. > There's no electrons flying around. Only electrons that have already stopped. They don't exist until measured. This is exactly the part that people love claiming as if it is settled, when it is anything but. The reality is that we don't yet know what quantum particles are. If they don't exist until you measure and then they start existing, then you need to explain what a measurement is, which we have no idea how to. In fact, even the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't exactly say what you are claiming. It is instead claiming that the wave function + the Born rule are a mathematical tool that predicts the behavior of quantum systems with excellent accuracy, and that the probabilities in the Born rule are fundamental. If we accept this fundamental impossibility of predicting deterministically the properties of a quantum system, it follows that it is unscientific to claim that the particles "have" properties that we fundamentally can't measure. This un-existence is then a philosophical argument, not a physical one: it's stating that something that can't in principle be measured can't be said to exist. Other popular explanations that are perfectly compatible with the Standard Model are: - the particles are real, and they exist at all positions in space as predicted by the Schrodinger equation, but these results happen in different universes; for some unexplained reason, "classical objects" can only observe one world at a time - particles are real, and their movement is affected by a real carrier wave; the particle has a definite but unmeasurable location in space and speed, affected by the carrier wave; the carrier wave is the wave described by the Schrodinger equation - Measurement is a physical process that causes particles to switch from being somewhat indefinite objects described by the wave function to being definite objects described by classical (rather, relativistic) mechanics Of course, some of these interpretations have their own unintuitive aspects (non-locality), because of the Bell inequalities. There is also super-determinism, that could in principle allow QM to be both deterministic and local, at the cost of statistical independence. And finally, the Standard Model itself doesn't yet account for gravity, and the current theories we have for gravity do not work with masses that have indefinite positions in space, so there is still room for discoveries that could contradict somewhat the fundamental properties of "particles" as known today (though, to be fair, it is more likely that our theories about gravity are the ones that will need adjustment).
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  I can tell you're deep into Physics as I am. To be honest I was presenting the "Standard Model" the way a professor would explain it to a student, who is trying to explain QFT using the conventional beliefs held by most of the Physics community. I agree with everything you said, actually, except for this one sentence which you stated which I know is some kind of typo, because I doubt you think it's true: "Before a measurement takes place, the movement of electrons is predicted by a deterministic equation, there is no probability." That sentence goes against conventional wisdom so I doubt you meant it litterally. Anyway, if you want my own personal unproven belief (theory) here it is: (or a few aspects of it) I think our universe is a 3D (excluding time) manifold that is an event horizon in a larger higher dimensional space and what we call "Wave Collapse" is actually the point where an actual existing real particle does travel across our manifold. That is, anything that we can assign a position to in spacetime coordinates is also "on" this manifold. You can also call this manifold our "universe". So when something exists in what we call "Probability Wave" state that just means we haven't yet done something to pinpoint a particle "on" this (our) event horizon. Unless someone is a very good geometry mathematician they cannot really comprehend how our entire universe can be a "surface" in some a higher-dimensional space, and since it's unproven I generally don't bring it up on HN. I also believe all N-Dimensional spaces contain (N-1)-Dimensional constructs inside them. The example in our unsivers is 'black holes'. We see 2D (i.e (3-1)D) constructs where our physics fails and even have proven their informational content is proportional to surface area (Hawking+Susskind). Most people think black holes are 3D spheres, but they're really 2D surfaces to their "inhabitants". Similarly the higher dimensional universe in which our 3D space is embedded would see our universe similarly as some kind of construct where their own physics breaks down, and they are unable to "look" inside possibly, just like we can't see inside black holes. Also if we are an event horizon it disproves the big bang theory. The inhabitants of a black hole would notice their "universe" is expanding, and therefore conclude they came "from" some center point, but in reality BHs form from outside in, not inside out. So our universe came from outside itself not inside itself. It doesn't solve the 'first mover' problem, it just inverts it, but it does simplify it. All that to say, I appreciated your response and you're right I was putting the "professor hat" on when I described most of what I said on this thread, but the paragraph above should prove I'm capable of as much quackery as the next guy. lol.

tsimionescu 6y ago

> If you want to call the "Standard Model" merely one among many "popular views" then you can, but that's not what I'd call accurate. No one really disagrees with it. They just have different "interpretations" of why it holds true. The Standard Model doesn't contain an explanation for the measurement problem, which is essentially what your explanation is touching on, with the claim that everything is quantum and that the electron really doesn't have a definite position in space, rather than us being unable to know its position. Basically you stated a version of the Copenhagen Interpretation, which is very popular, but not the only way of making sense of the wave function. > When electrons are "in the cloud" (pre-wave-collapse) they're pure probability and so none of them have an actual location in spacetime even if you had some infinitely fast camera to look. They simply don't exist at specific locations. They are genuinely everywhere at once, or stated even more correctly: they don't exist. Only the energy exists. I think you're mixing things up a bit here. Before a measurement takes place, the movement of electrons is predicted by a deterministic equation, there is no probability. The electron is indeed (described by?) a wave function that has some amplitude at any point in space. My point about "interacting with themselves" was that the Schrodinger equation predicts the possibility of self-interference of a single electron's wave function, which is an observed effect. I think you're also over-selling the wave part of the duality and disregarding the particle part. The electron doesn't behave entirely like a wave, it also has particle-like properties, such as a fixed mass and a fixed charge. > There's no electrons flying around. Only electrons that have already stopped. They don't exist until measured. This is exactly the part that people love claiming as if it is settled, when it is anything but. The reality is that we don't yet know what quantum particles are. If they don't exist until you measure and then they start existing, then you need to explain what a measurement is, which we have no idea how to. In fact, even the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't exactly say what you are claiming. It is instead claiming that the wave function + the Born rule are a mathematical tool that predicts the behavior of quantum systems with excellent accuracy, and that the probabilities in the Born rule are fundamental. If we accept this fundamental impossibility of predicting deterministically the properties of a quantum system, it follows that it is unscientific to claim that the particles "have" properties that we fundamentally can't measure. This un-existence is then a philosophical argument, not a physical one: it's stating that something that can't in principle be measured can't be said to exist. Other popular explanations that are perfectly compatible with the Standard Model are: - the particles are real, and they exist at all positions in space as predicted by the Schrodinger equation, but these results happen in different universes; for some unexplained reason, "classical objects" can only observe one world at a time - particles are real, and their movement is affected by a real carrier wave; the particle has a definite but unmeasurable location in space and speed, affected by the carrier wave; the carrier wave is the wave described by the Schrodinger equation - Measurement is a physical process that causes particles to switch from being somewhat indefinite objects described by the wave function to being definite objects described by classical (rather, relativistic) mechanics Of course, some of these interpretations have their own unintuitive aspects (non-locality), because of the Bell inequalities. There is also super-determinism, that could in principle allow QM to be both deterministic and local, at the cost of statistical independence. And finally, the Standard Model itself doesn't yet account for gravity, and the current theories we have for gravity do not work with masses that have indefinite positions in space, so there is still room for discoveries that could contradict somewhat the fundamental properties of "particles" as known today (though, to be fair, it is more likely that our theories about gravity are the ones that will need adjustment).

WClayFerguson 6y ago
I can tell you're deep into Physics as I am. To be honest I was presenting the "Standard Model" the way a professor would explain it to a student, who is trying to explain QFT using the conventional beliefs held by most of the Physics community. I agree with everything you said, actually, except for this one sentence which you stated which I know is some kind of typo, because I doubt you think it's true: "Before a measurement takes place, the movement of electrons is predicted by a deterministic equation, there is no probability." That sentence goes against conventional wisdom so I doubt you meant it litterally. Anyway, if you want my own personal unproven belief (theory) here it is: (or a few aspects of it) I think our universe is a 3D (excluding time) manifold that is an event horizon in a larger higher dimensional space and what we call "Wave Collapse" is actually the point where an actual existing real particle does travel across our manifold. That is, anything that we can assign a position to in spacetime coordinates is also "on" this manifold. You can also call this manifold our "universe". So when something exists in what we call "Probability Wave" state that just means we haven't yet done something to pinpoint a particle "on" this (our) event horizon. Unless someone is a very good geometry mathematician they cannot really comprehend how our entire universe can be a "surface" in some a higher-dimensional space, and since it's unproven I generally don't bring it up on HN. I also believe all N-Dimensional spaces contain (N-1)-Dimensional constructs inside them. The example in our unsivers is 'black holes'. We see 2D (i.e (3-1)D) constructs where our physics fails and even have proven their informational content is proportional to surface area (Hawking+Susskind). Most people think black holes are 3D spheres, but they're really 2D surfaces to their "inhabitants". Similarly the higher dimensional universe in which our 3D space is embedded would see our universe similarly as some kind of construct where their own physics breaks down, and they are unable to "look" inside possibly, just like we can't see inside black holes. Also if we are an event horizon it disproves the big bang theory. The inhabitants of a black hole would notice their "universe" is expanding, and therefore conclude they came "from" some center point, but in reality BHs form from outside in, not inside out. So our universe came from outside itself not inside itself. It doesn't solve the 'first mover' problem, it just inverts it, but it does simplify it. All that to say, I appreciated your response and you're right I was putting the "professor hat" on when I described most of what I said on this thread, but the paragraph above should prove I'm capable of as much quackery as the next guy. lol.