Discussion Topic: Might Quantum Probability be Classically-Explainable Based on Motion Through the Planck Vacuum?
Jay R. Yablon
I have linked below a 3.5 page paper titled "Might Quantum Probability
be Classically-Explainable Based on Motion Through the Planck Vacuum?"
This is a very easy read -- no heavy math -- intended to begin some good
group discussion on the probabilistic interpretations of quantum
mechanics.
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/Hidden%20Variables.pdf
The question posed, at bottom, is: Does God *really* play dice?
My own instincts say *no*, and that we just don't know enough,
particularly about what happens on the ultra-small Planck scale, to tell
us WHY we observe the probability distributions that we do observe for
quantum particles. That is, we just don't understand the mechanics of
the Planck vacuum which hare responsible for the probability
distributions we observe. In this sense, I take the observed
probability distributions to be more of a statement about the vacuum the
particle travels through than a statement about the
probabilistically-distributed particle.
Hoping for some good discussion.
Jay.
__________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email: jya...@nycap.rr.com
Web site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm
Douglas Eagleson
> Web site:http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm
A basic fermi model was the distribution maybe? I am historically
vague because the universe was consider a condensation. And a density
of vacuum allowed the apparent dilemma to be resolved.
Did you intend as theory goes to allow the universe size to cause the
entire fluctuation. A third fluctuation of interaction is implied in
the theory.
And when I say size, a certain density of vacuum's rate of density
change must be caused. So passing the dice to the third difference in
vacuum probability was the theory I guess? A class as the dice of the
conflicting universe was used to cause the solution in third
appearenace of dice.
You cheated.
Jay R. Yablon
news:1173483004.3...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> A basic fermi model was the distribution maybe? I am historically
> vague because the universe was consider a condensation. And a density
> of vacuum allowed the apparent dilemma to be resolved.
>
> Did you intend as theory goes to allow the universe size to cause the
> entire fluctuation. A third fluctuation of interaction is implied in
> the theory.
>
> And when I say size, a certain density of vacuum's rate of density
> change must be caused. So passing the dice to the third difference in
> vacuum probability was the theory I guess? A class as the dice of the
> conflicting universe was used to cause the solution in third
> appearenace of dice.
>
> You cheated.
>
What are you talking about? Your whole reply is barely intelligible.
Jay.
Peter
Hi Jay,
This resembles Nelson's (ca. 1965) stochastic foundations of QM,
doesn't it?
Furthermore, I have seeked to construct a two-step random walk for the
time-dependent Schrödinger equation, but didn't succeed, do you know
one?
Looking forward,
Peter
FrediFizzx
news:55e5unF...@mid.individual.net...
> Dear SPR Friends:
>
> I have linked below a 3.5 page paper titled "Might Quantum Probability
> be Classically-Explainable Based on Motion Through the Planck Vacuum?"
>
> This is a very easy read -- no heavy math -- intended to begin some
> good
> group discussion on the probabilistic interpretations of quantum
> mechanics.
>
> http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/Hidden%20Variables.pdf
Hi Jay,
Looks like a good start.
> The question posed, at bottom, is: Does God *really* play dice?
IMHO, the answer is yes but God also has order to his play. Random and
order; it's a duality. One will not exist without the other. Same
thing for classical -- quantum.
> My own instincts say *no*, and that we just don't know enough,
> particularly about what happens on the ultra-small Planck scale, to
> tell
> us WHY we observe the probability distributions that we do observe for
> quantum particles. That is, we just don't understand the mechanics of
> the Planck vacuum which hare responsible for the probability
> distributions we observe. In this sense, I take the observed
> probability distributions to be more of a statement about the vacuum
> the
> particle travels through than a statement about the
> probabilistically-distributed particle.
Well, we really don't even know exactly what is going on below
sub-atomic scale "vacuum-wise" let alone Planck scale. We do have some
pretty good clues though from HEP. And LHC could possibly give us many
more clues. I actually get a little bit "rattled" by the mention of
"Planck scale" because there is absolutely no empirical evidence that it
is true or even might be true. Of course there is no evidence that it
is not true either. ;-) So we have to allow speculation about it. For
me, the quantum "vacuum" starts at the e+e- scale. And ends up at the
"Higgs scale" (electroweak). So where does Newton's G really fit into
all of this? I suspect it is not being applied correctly to obtain
Planck mass, etc. But I think what you are talking about in the paper
is on the right track as far as tying in quantum probability to the
quantum "vacuum". IMHO, there is order in the "vacuum" and I don't
think we have to go to the Planck scale to find it.
Best,
Fred Diether
Ken S. Tucker
> "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondoug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I agree Jay, Douglas's posts are beyond me,
perhaps he might try to clarify things for us
mortals:-).
Let's refer to Fig.1 in...
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/Hidden%20Variables.pdf
(nice essay btw).
I imagined putting an integer spin on the ball,
CCW or CW and have just 3 bins,
Left : Middle : Right
A CCW spin rolls the ball into Left always, CW into
Right always, and none in the Middle.
((Yes I play pool, and use english))
Would we interpret the lack of any
balls going into the Middle as "destructive
interference" ?
OTOH if we had no initial spin the distribution
would be Left=1, Middle=2, Right=1, and we
would call that "constructive interference"?.
Does that make sense?
Regards
Ken
Oh No
>Dear SPR Friends:
>
>I have linked below a 3.5 page paper titled "Might Quantum Probability
>be Classically-Explainable Based on Motion Through the Planck Vacuum?"
>
>This is a very easy read -- no heavy math -- intended to begin some good
>group discussion on the probabilistic interpretations of quantum
>mechanics.
>
>http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/Hidden%20Variables.pdf
>
>The question posed, at bottom, is: Does God *really* play dice?
>
I don't find it helpful to try and answer this question by analogy with
classical probabilistic experiments like the ball drop. In such a
classical experiment the probabilistic behaviour is determined by
unknown variables and we know from general theorems that such a "hidden
variables" approach cannot explain quantum behaviour. I find it more
reasonable to think that quantum behaviour is explained, not from
unknowns, like precise positions of the pegs and the balls, but because
classical ideas, like the very idea of absolute position, cease to have
meaning on the quantum scale.
A better analogy I think would be to use a fractal curve. I have said
elsewhere that I am not sure of the value of fractals in a fundamental
study, but a fractal curve does have some properties which I think are
analogous to what happens when we do a quantum experiment. Imagine a
fractal curve which has a general form approximate to a continuous
function (such as is used in texturing in computer graphics
applications). Now put a small section of the curve under a microscope.
The local behaviour under the microscope will be a curve with an
entirely random direction, but the random variable here is not contained
within the curve itself. In fact the random variable is the position
where you happened to place the microscope.
This is also true in an experiment in quantum theory. The quantum world
could have a determinist structure but our experiments would still
appear random because we have no control over the exact point in time,
with relation to the quantum structure, when we do the measurement. This
being the case we have no means to determine whether the structure is
actually determinist, indeterminist, or fatalistic.
As for the issue of which is correct, it always surprises me that so
many physicists appear to have a prejudice towards determinism. I see no
a priore reason to believe in determinism and as far as I can tell, the
only reason anyone may have to believe in it is habitual thinking from
having done too many problems in classical mechanics. As it happens I
find determinism the least attractive of all possibilities because it
implies an absolute denial of free will. If we deny free will we may as
well deny the existence of god for all the good he could do, deny
morality and deny every other human value we hold to have any worth.
As for whether god plays dice, a friend of mine once said that it is
inconceivable that an omniscient omnipotent god could not have devised a
structure which he would enable hir to manipulate the course of events
entirely invisible to man. To which I have added that theists may
suppose that the laws of quantum theory are evidence that this is
exactly what che did.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email
Ken S. Tucker
...
> This is also true in an experiment in quantum theory. The quantum world
> could have a determinist structure but our experiments would still
> appear random because we have no control over the exact point in time,
> with relation to the quantum structure, when we do the measurement. This
> being the case we have no means to determine whether the structure is
> actually determinist, indeterminist, or fatalistic.
I think that's an ideal application of "radar ranging",
applied to microscopy, especially when the energy
used to probe a structure, affects the structure.
Just as in cosmology, the returned image is set back
in time.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/Hidden%20Variables.pdf
> Furthermore, I have seeked to construct a two-step random walk for the
> time-dependent Schrödinger equation, but didn't succeed, do you know
> one?
Hi Peter
I think I can show intereference using Jay's
peg analogy in Fig.1.
Suppose the spin of the ball is CCW and must go Left,
and if it's CW it must go Right, and that spin is randomized
whenever an odd number of pegs is in a row, but the spin
remains constant if the number of pegs in the row is even.
Then following the row with 4 pegs, there are 5 bins,
that become filled like,
| 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
to provide an interference pattern, randomized
every other step when contacting the pegs in
a row that are an "odd" number.
The 2nd and 4th bin are empty, so in that way
we're quantizing interference (without using
wave equations), relying on spin changes relating
to the structure.
Regards
Ken
Cl.Massé
news: OzhwbODD...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk
> I don't find it helpful to try and answer this question by analogy with
> classical probabilistic experiments like the ball drop. In such a
> classical experiment the probabilistic behaviour is determined by
> unknown variables and we know from general theorems that such a "hidden
> variables" approach cannot explain quantum behaviour.
As I already said, only *local* hidden variables are ruled out. The Boehm's
interpretation indeed includes hidden variables, but also non local
interactions, and is compatible with EPR type experiments.
> I find it more
> reasonable to think that quantum behaviour is explained, not from
> unknowns, like precise positions of the pegs and the balls, but because
> classical ideas, like the very idea of absolute position, cease to have
> meaning on the quantum scale.
Whatever, the theory must yield a equivalent for classical absolute
position, since it is objectively measured, and none of QM's mysteries
dispels.
> This is also true in an experiment in quantum theory. The quantum world
> could have a determinist structure but our experiments would still
> appear random because we have no control over the exact point in time,
> with relation to the quantum structure, when we do the measurement. This
> being the case we have no means to determine whether the structure is
> actually determinist, indeterminist, or fatalistic.
Many classical models have been tried to implement that idea, no one
succeeded. And that coaxed their authors into thinking that QM is really
different. For example, the Young's slit experiment isn't amenable to such
an analysis. Whatever the hidden variables you use, be it about space and
time, they can't be local.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Oh No
>"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
>news: OzhwbODD...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk
>
>> I don't find it helpful to try and answer this question by analogy with
>> classical probabilistic experiments like the ball drop. In such a
>> classical experiment the probabilistic behaviour is determined by
>> unknown variables and we know from general theorems that such a "hidden
>> variables" approach cannot explain quantum behaviour.
>
>As I already said, only *local* hidden variables are ruled out.
True. The classical notion of locality breaks down. I don't think that
means locality breaks down, but it does mean that locality is given a
different meaning - something which incorporates the locality condition
in qed, rather than classical locality.
>The Boehm's
>interpretation indeed includes hidden variables, but also non local
>interactions, and is compatible with EPR type experiments.
Unfortunately I don't regard a theory which incorporates processes
without an explanation as an interpretation.
>
>> I find it more
>> reasonable to think that quantum behaviour is explained, not from
>> unknowns, like precise positions of the pegs and the balls, but because
>> classical ideas, like the very idea of absolute position, cease to have
>> meaning on the quantum scale.
>
>Whatever, the theory must yield a equivalent for classical absolute
>position, since it is objectively measured, and none of QM's mysteries
>dispels.
Indeed. The classical notion of position must appear in measurement of
position. It does not have to be a fundamental of nature.
>
>> This is also true in an experiment in quantum theory. The quantum world
>> could have a determinist structure but our experiments would still
>> appear random because we have no control over the exact point in time,
>> with relation to the quantum structure, when we do the measurement. This
>> being the case we have no means to determine whether the structure is
>> actually determinist, indeterminist, or fatalistic.
>
>Many classical models have been tried to implement that idea, no one
>succeeded. And that coaxed their authors into thinking that QM is really
>different. For example, the Young's slit experiment isn't amenable to such
>an analysis.
Agreed, but I was not talking here about reducing to a classical
analysis. Only about whether the fundamental structure might be
determinist, indeterminist or fatalistic.
>Whatever the hidden variables you use, be it about space and
>time, they can't be local.
The suggestion is that we do not have space and time for quantum
behaviour, or at least that we do not have space. I don't think that
means no notion of locality is possible, but a classical notion is not
possible. As I say, I think a different notion of locality is expressed
in field theory.
Jay R. Yablon
> As I already said, only *local* hidden variables are ruled out. The
> Boehm's
> interpretation indeed includes hidden variables, but also non local
> interactions, and is compatible with EPR type experiments.
>
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory:
"What Bohm did, based on an idea originally by de Broglie, was to posit
both the quantum particle, e.g. an electron, and a hidden 'guiding wave'
that governs its motion. Thus, in this theory electrons are quite
clearly particles. When you perform a double-slit experiment (see
wave-particle duality), they go through one slit rather than the other.
However, their choice of slit is not random but is governed by the
guiding wave, resulting in the wave pattern that is observed.
"Such a view contradicts the simple idea of local events that is used in
both classical atomism and relativity theory. It points to a more
holistic, mutually interpenetrating and interacting view of the world.
Indeed Bohm himself stressed the holistic aspect of quantum theory in
his later years, when he became interested in the ideas of J.
Krishnamurti. The Bohm interpretation (as well as others) has also been
the basis of some books which attempt to connect physics with Eastern
mysticism and "consciousness".
Back to Jay:
What I am proposing is, as I review this, very Bohmian in character.
What I am calling reconfiguration of the vacuum, can be regarded as a
"guiding vacuum." I am definitely pursuing a particle view of each
individual photon or electron. Am also of the view that they go through
one slit or the other but not both since we have never seen an
experiment demonstrate that a single electron has gone through both
slits nor have we ever seen a single electron produce more than a single
"pinprick" on a detector. So, the "both slits at a time" idea simply
has no experimental support and is directly contradicted by all
experimental evidence. "Two places at once" is, in this view, an
artifact used to maintain a "wave view" of light when in fact all we can
say with experimental support is that aggregate collections of
individual "pinprick" electrons, photons, etc., when two slits are both
open, create detector patterns of wavelike interference. The question
then becomes, what is it that "guides" the "point" particles into such a
collective distribution based on how the slits are configured. I hope
to add more later about how Casimir effect might provide a physical
underpinning to all of this, as I started to outline last night in the
parallel thread "Double slit experiments, one quantum at a time."
Jay.