The Nature of the Wave Function by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Mr. Klingman, this is something particular interest to me of how energy and time related to 1 another. I am rather unfamiliar with this concept. Where might a good resource be that I could look into this more? Thanks.

Dwaynefries1@gmail.com

Hello Edwin,

I've never disagreed with your emphasis on continuous functions. I just never have seen a way for your program to satisfy the completeness criterion, which of course is my chief concern.

Lamport's contribution is a strict local barrier to completeness; overcoming it requires a global solution.

Tom

Dear Edwin

Thanks for your recommendations of essays to read.

It would seem that when presented with the choice between mathematics and physics, we are not alone in choosing the physics over mathematics. I made mine when I did a course on super-symmetry during my PhD and decided it was just mathematical fantasy. A conclusion that the LHC seems to be confirming - probably conclusively by the end of 2012. Unfortunately the mathematics which directly disagrees with our physical intuition is correct, and so a number of us are concluding that there just MUST be something screwy with our mathematical representation.

Physical intuition leads to the conclusion that the particle aspect of wave-particle duality is more fundamental, and that the wave aspect is causally created by the particle in some way - my essay also contains this. However, experiments reveal that the wave aspect seems to causally determine where the particle aspect is found. This gives a form of causal closure where the fundamental particle property determines the wave, particle -> wave, but the wave aspect then determines the particle, wave -> particle. The difficulty is that the causation particle -> wave will take some time dt>0 and the causation of wave -> particle will take some time dt>0, but experiments reveal that the closed cycle takes no time at all dt=0. My point about a change in the background metric is the only way I can see of squaring this without falling foul of non-locality problems with experiments.

With the particle being fundamental the wave aspect can be said to be created from the bottom-up, but the problematic element is always the reverse from wave to particle, which looks like a problem with top-down causation - the subject of the George Ellis essay. And in fact, my essay somewhat hides that the real issue is an identifiable problem with the mathematical representation of causally closed states under certain conditions. I made this much clearer in a more general philosophy of science paper which I have just put on http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0010

Best,

Michael

Hi Erwin, first of all, a very understandable essay about the essence of physics today. Physicists based in the Uk think that they have proof that ithere is more then meets the eye. (see New Scientist 28 july 2012, : Ghost in the atom, page 28-31, by Marcus Chown) They concoted a thought experiment which involved bringing two independent atoms together and making a particular measurement on them. Their results showed that the wave function cannot be a mere abstract mathematical device, IT MUST BE REAL (?). Their conclusion : Quantum Theory makes no sense if the wave function is merely a probability distribution instead, the wave function HAS TO BE A REAL THING associated with a single quantum system, informing it how to behave. I wonder what your opinion is here, I am doubting this view, because i think that a quantum system has true properties, even before any measurement (observation) has been made on it., further moer in my new essay "THE CONSCIOUNESS CONNECTION" which has still to be accepted by FQXi, I introduce the so called "subjective simultaneity" which is in fact a universal web of interactions (decoherence) in which almost every system influences every other system. The second doubt I have is that the wave function ofv two particles (in their view) exist in an abstract six-dimensional space and for three particles nine-dimensional and so on, this is not logical I think. Furthermore once you accept a wave as a reality (stuff) in an atom where is the origin of this wave ? It means that the wave must be created sometime as a result of particles merging but then ?

thanks in advance for your appreciated answer. Wilhelmus

Dear Edwin Eugene,

I think, demonstrating the relativity of simultaneity in accordance with the wave functions of two identical particles, may evolve consistency of wave mechanics with string dynamics within the framework of quantum mechanics.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

Great comments and great questions! And thanks for the link to "Ghost in the atom". I'll start with that. The animation is actually wrong in my view. They say that if the wave function is 'real' then you get a 'taco-dog-burger' in the box until you look at it. That is the 'collapse of the wave function' interpretation that I explain to be incorrect. It surprises me that physicists can insist that the wave function is real and still believe it is a mathematical superposition.

But I do agree with you (and them) that "the wave function cannot be a mere abstract mathematical device, IT MUST BE REAL" and that "Quantum Theory makes no sense if the wave function is a mere probability distribution, instead, the wave function HAS TO BE A REAL THING."

Recent measurements of the wave function (discussed in my essay) agree with a recent proof by Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph ('PBR') than an "information only" wave function cannot predict quantum results. This is consistent with the work you mention and with my essay.

I also agree with you that the system has true ('real') properties before it is measured [that is, it is a dog or a taco or a burger before you open the box, not a mysterious 'superposition' taco-dog-burger]. To not believe this leads to the situation I described in "down the rabbit hole" above where the first measurement shows what values the experimenter will choose **in the future**, before they have even made their choice. In other words, acting as if Bell's theorem [or the Copenhagen interpretation] is true leads to nonsense.

You describe the wave as "informing it how to behave". I would not interpret this literally. The particle and physical wave function form one inseparable system. The motion of the particle induces the field that constitutes the wave and changes in the wave feed back to the particle. Neither is "boss".

You propose a universal web of interactions in which every system influences every other system. We know that we have something like this (in the gravitational field, for instance) but the real question is how fast the influences travel. If they travel at the spead of light, then one side of the 'web' may not influence the other side for 14 billion years or so. But what if the changes are instantaneous (as you seem to imply with the word 'simultaneity')? Then every change propagates instantly to every other system, the reaction propagates back immediately, and the reaction-to-the-reaction propagates to all other systems immediately and all possible future changes and all reactions to these changes all happen at once, resulting, I believe, in nothing happening. So there must be a finite speed, but then one is back to such long delays that only local interactions seem to make much sense.

You note that two particles are represented in an abstract 6-dimensional space, three particles in a 9-dimensional space and N particle in a 3N or abstract 'configuration' space. I also treat this is my essay (page 7). Einstein and others, believing that wave could exist *without particles*, concluded that momentum and energy were conserved *only statistically* in 3-space. Schrodinger then FORCED the 3N-dimensional solution to conserve energy (after all, Schrodinger's equation is just the conservation of energy relation, written using operators!) As explained in the essay, this seems to imply (in view of Einstein's confused 'statistical conservation' idea) a certain 'non-locality' that has haunted us to this day. I believe this is also the conceptual source of the "stronger correlations" that Joy interprets in a different fashion. It's complicated, but I believe that reading and rereading pages 7-9 in my essay will help clear it up.

Finally, you ask about "the origin of this wave". It is the gravito-magnetic field ('discovered' by Maxwell and 'built-into' Einstein's relativity field equations). Just as an electric charge moving in an electric field induces electro-magnetic circulation, a mass particle moving in a gravitational field induces gravito-magnetic circulation. It's always there as a physical wave and I show in the essay how and why it corresponds to the probability amplitude.

Thanks for those questions. I hope this helps.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

I read with interest your essay. I think that one of the major questions in physics is to understand the wavefunction, and how is it able to give the results we observe. I congratulate you for attacking this problem in such a beautiful essay. Good luck with the contest.

Best regards,

Cristi

Thank you Edwin for the reply, and excuse for my typo error of Erwin, I will come back to you after the acceptation of my essay by FQXi (there was a refernce which was not 100%) I am now rereading your essay. Wilhelmus

Hi Edwin

I really enjoyed reading your well written essay. You did a very nice work, quite intelligible. I do agree that the wave function represents a real particle. I understand your line of reasoning and why it is important for you the references you asked me.

Eckard Blumschein mentioned in his essay the following:

Hermann Weyl warned: We are less certain than ever about the ultimate foundations.

- Feynman smugly declared quantum mechanics something that nobody understands.

You said: So quantum mechanics is based on real local particle-plus-induced-wave, not on mystical non-local superposition of non-real wavefunctions of the kind Bohr, Feynman and others insist "no one can understand".

And also: 'No one can understand this theory until he is willing to think of as a real objective field rather than just a 'probability amplitude'.

I made the following comment to Eckard's essay which I think also apply to yours:

...I believe my essay offers viable solutions to the understanding of QM. Since the beginning of the XX, physics became so abstract that the physical and intuitive sense were demoted to a second plane. By the 1930s Heisenberg himself gave up trying to find an intuitive picture of quantum mechanical phenomena. He concluded that it was impossible to understand quantum mechanics intuitively; Schrondinger, Born, Bohr, Neumann, Feynman and others agreed with him. I believe that the reason for this is because they no longer had in mind some physical concepts that are crucial to accomplish the intuitive picture that they were looking for, namely: the PSR, the aether, the idea that particles are actually waves, and the notion that a field is a state of the aether. Once these concepts are restored in the physical conception of reality all the mysteries of quantum mechanics automatically disappear.

Perhaps, you may not see clearly the connection but the last paragraph is highly connected with entanglement, as you said:

Thus Bell is wrong --quantum mechanics is local.. Yet some physicists believe that quantum mechanics is inherently non-local...'non-locality' is fictitious, and the non-locality disappears from quantum mechanics.

I agree with this. I think you are in the correct track, but if you really wish your view to be widely accepted you must grant your works with a different philosophical framework in which the physical conceptions I mention in my paragraph are included. The reason for this is not only because your works could acquire more physical and intuitive meaning but also because it could lead you to new unobserved physical phenomena. As long as you maintain your ideas within the current paradigm, they will gain very few attention from the physics community. As an example of this just bring to mind both Bohm's quantum mechanics and consistent quantum mechanics. The latter argues that there is no collapse of the wave function. But both attempts predict no new physics they are only different interpretations. Your case, at first sight, is similar, it appears only a different interpretation of the wave function.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

Dear FQXi'ers,

An interesting situation has arisen where Joy's use of the topological spheres S0, S1, S3, S7 has 'collided with' Michael James Goodband's use of the same topologies. Joy, of course, claims that S7 is the *ONLY* solution to Bell's quantum correlation problem, while Michael Goodband employs S7 as 'particle space'. Although I am NOT an expert in these issues, they seem to be (or Joy claims them to be) relevant to my approach, so I have a natural interest here. After an initial period of familiarization with each others use of these topologies, Christian and Goodband are now comparing and contrasting...

What I find most interesting is that Joy appears to be working in quantum mechanics (QM), where particle number is fixed, while Goodband is working at the deeper level of quantum field theory (QFT) where the number of particles varies. From this perspective Goodband has just (Aug 9, 2012 @15:53) noted the following [with notation as e^|e_ for electron spin up e^ and electron spin down e_ ]:

"My point is that this is just quantum mechanics, think quantum field theory. Just as the emission of a photon converts e^ to e_ the emission of a W-boson converts an electron into an neutrino, an up quark into a down quark etc. and there are also inter-family conversion reactions. Such interactions mean that the most general EPR 2 particle scenario in QFT is *not* of the form A^|A_ but A^|B_ where particles A and B can be of any type; A=B is just a special case in QFT.

The observables to consider in the correlation analysis are both the spin eigenvalues of the rotation group SU(2) - group space S3 - and the particle types which are eigenvalues of some 'particle space'. I use this term in place of particle symmetry group, because grand unified theories assumed that it was going to be a group - a hidden assumption I could have raised in my essay - whereas my work says that it is the quotient group SU(4)/SU(3) isomorphic to S7. So there are 2 sets of observables with quantum correlations {^,_} and {A,B,...} where the values of the first set are the eigenvalues of the rotation group with space S3. In my case the second set contains eigenvalues of SU(4)/SU(3) ~ S7 (after the symmetry has been broken) and the S3 is clearly distinct from this S7.

Your analysis should also apply to the quantum correlations between the observables in each of the 2 sets {^,_} and {A,B,...} for the most general EPR 2 particle scenario A^|B_ in the Standard Model QFT. Ultimately my question is whether there is a way to use your analysis in reverse to place a constraint on the origin of these observables?

I.e. some argument of the form

Parallelised S3 => group space S3 for the observables {^, _}

Parallelised S7 => 'group space' S7 for the observables {A,B,...}

A straightforward argument doesn't seem to work, which is why I am asking :-)

Michael"

For those who have been following the "Disproof" blogs for a year or so, this is a fascinating new development..This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I agree. It is helpful to follow discussions as they take place. Different viewpoints or different ways of expressing same or similar ideas when contrasted with each other adds clarity even when solutions still appear unclear. Its the reasoning processes that become clearer. More than reading someone's conclusion, I learn from the why they say it. What are their, the speaker's, truths from which their thoughts spring forth. I think the conversations taking place presently are great. Even if my truths are different truths, I want to understand what the professionals think and, if possible, why. I follow your participation with great interest.

James

Edwin,

Michael wrote,

"Parallelised S3 => group space S3 for the observables {^, _}

Parallelised S7 => 'group space' S7 for the observables {A,B,...}

A straightforward argument doesn't seem to work, which is why I am asking :-)"

Actually, that looks quite straightforward to me -- Joy has always emphasized completeness, i.e., that *all* quantum correlations are explained by his framework. The simply connected space completes all these measure values in a locally realistic manner.

Tom

Edwin,

To my level of understanding, this is monumental for theoretical physics:

"The problem (ignored for almost a century) isn't dispersing wave packets in the atom, but the impossibility of such wave packets even existing in the atom.

The Nature of the Wave Function

The particle-plus-wave is real, but de Broglie failed to specify just what the wave is. We do so here, beginning with an equation from general relativity."

Was beginning to reread your essay just now and am continuing to read though it carefully.

James

Edwin,

I noted your comment about reading the soliton reference I cited in a comment on John Macken's essay. The universe has a habit of being consistent in presenting a particular manifestation. Since researchers have started looking, soliton action has been identified in a wide spectrum of processes.

I made a comment in another essay, "the universe has very efficient energy transfer processes and the soliton is one manifestation of this process." So far, I have found just one essay in this contest where the author mentioned soliton and it was a very minor element.

You made the statement in response to Gary Simpson (Jul. 8, 2012 @ 00:40 GMT)

"I tend to think of the handedness as originating in general relativity, and Schrodinger just has to live with it, but there may be other fruitful ways to conceive of it." Right and left hand conventions have been used before quantum mechanics. In the Whyte article cited below, "Oersted (1820) discovered the anomalous R-handed screw action of an electric current on a magnet." The "right-hand" rule for expressing vector directions has been around well over a century.

Chirality

Many more handedness examples have been found since the Whyte article was published, but I have not found a good compilation of them.

I consider a soliton as a permitted process, probably mandatory in some processes, wherein I consider handedness the result of some "universal" influence.