Thread: wave function collapse in systems

1. If multiple quantum particles which are each individually collapsed from superstates form a system, is that system then effectively in a superstate of each particle's attributes, capable of wave-function collapse as a whole system? Also, would this mean that wave function collapse would occur in the form of the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces between all collapsed waveforms of all systems in the universe? I know this isn't something proven that I can get a quick yes or no on but it makes a lot of sense to me.

2.

3. A wave function is the probabilistic measure of a superposition. To the extent that a wave function is collapsed, the superposition is also proportionally collapsed. The collapse of a wave function only occurs when a quantum measurement is taken.
Any and all quantum measurements are subject to the uncertainty principle, that the product of the uncertainty in the quanta's position and the uncertainty in the quanta's velocity must be greater than Planck's constant. If we measure the quanta's position with complete accuracy, we have stopped it dead and have zero data concerning it's velocity. If we measure the quanta's velocity with complete accuracy, we have measured some effect of it's passing without interacting with the quanta in the slightest, and have zero data concerning it's position.
Since any measurement of a quanta, even as static data, still contains the probability spread of the inherent uncertainty, the wave function is never wholly collapsed. The uncertainty of a system of multiple quanta will equal, not the sum of uncertainty's, But the product of the uncertainty's. Therefore, where the total collapse of a single wave function or superposition is theoretically impossible, the total collapse of a system of wave function's or superpositions is several orders of theoretically impossible.

In quantum physics, all forces, except gravity, are actuated through the exchange of quanta between quanta. The collapse of the wave function of the system would result in the disexistentiation of the quanta and thus also the forces.

Well, okay maybe, I guess. 8)

4. Originally Posted by schiz0yd
If multiple quantum particles which are each individually collapsed from superstates form a system, is that system then effectively in a superstate of each particle's attributes, capable of wave-function collapse as a whole system? Also, would this mean that wave function collapse would occur in the form of the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces between all collapsed waveforms of all systems in the universe? I know this isn't something proven that I can get a quick yes or no on but it makes a lot of sense to me.
If this makes sense to you then you had better go back and reread that quantum mechanics book. You have things rather garbled.

5. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
A wave function is the probabilistic measure of a superposition. To the extent that a wave function is collapsed, the superposition is also proportionally collapsed. The collapse of a wave function only occurs when a quantum measurement is taken.
Any and all quantum measurements are subject to the uncertainty principle, that the product of the uncertainty in the quanta's position and the uncertainty in the quanta's velocity must be greater than Planck's constant. If we measure the quanta's position with complete accuracy, we have stopped it dead and have zero data concerning it's velocity. If we measure the quanta's velocity with complete accuracy, we have measured some effect of it's passing without interacting with the quanta in the slightest, and have zero data concerning it's position.
Since any measurement of a quanta, even as static data, still contains the probability spread of the inherent uncertainty, the wave function is never wholly collapsed. The uncertainty of a system of multiple quanta will equal, not the sum of uncertainty's, But the product of the uncertainty's. Therefore, where the total collapse of a single wave function or superposition is theoretically impossible, the total collapse of a system of wave function's or superpositions is several orders of theoretically impossible.

In quantum physics, all forces, except gravity, are actuated through the exchange of quanta between quanta. The collapse of the wave function of the system would result in the disexistentiation of the quanta and thus also the forces.

Well, okay maybe, I guess. 8)
This is nearly as badly garbled as the original quesiton.

Wave function collapse is part of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It simply means that then one a measurement occurs, the value of an observable is found to be an eigenvalue of the operator corresponding to the observable, and the state function an eigenfunction, aka a pure state. The state function then evolves from that point forward according to the wave equation.

6. DrRocket wrote;
This is nearly as badly garbled as the original quesiton.

Wave function collapse is part of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It simply means that then one a measurement occurs, the value of an observable is found to be an eigenvalue of the operator corresponding to the observable, and the state function an eigenfunction, aka a pure state. The state function then evolves from that point forward according to the wave equation.
From the Wicktionary:
Garbled;Adjective;(Of a message, etc...)Difficult to understand because it has been distorted or scrambled.

None of my post is distorted or scrambled. It is possible that my assertions may be inaccurate, but they are concisely expounded. While the word "disexistentiation" is not canonical, it is properly constructed from an accepted prefix and suffix, and spelled correctly.

Let's examine your statement sir. Question is not spelled "quesiton". The third sentence of your post contains this strange conjunction "then one a". Really sir, I would not make a fool of myself by glibly challenging your profound mathematical skills. Now if you can, please explain to me in English, any erroneousness in my basic concepts of wave function collapse, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and superposition.

7. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
DrRocket wrote;
This is nearly as badly garbled as the original quesiton.

Wave function collapse is part of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It simply means that then one a measurement occurs, the value of an observable is found to be an eigenvalue of the operator corresponding to the observable, and the state function an eigenfunction, aka a pure state. The state function then evolves from that point forward according to the wave equation.
From the Wicktionary:
Garbled;Adjective;(Of a message, etc...)Difficult to understand because it has been distorted or scrambled.

None of my post is distorted or scrambled. It is possible that my assertions may be inaccurate, but they are concisely expounded. While the word "disexistentiation" is not canonical, it is properly constructed from an accepted prefix and suffix, and spelled correctly.

Let's examine your statement sir. Question is not spelled "quesiton". The third sentence of your post contains this strange conjunction "then one a". Really sir, I would not make a fool of myself by glibly challenging your profound mathematical skills. Now if you can, please explain to me in English, any erroneousness in my basic concepts of wave function collapse, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and superposition.
Ok there werre some typos. Sometimes the size of my fingers makes it difficult to hit the proper key, or just one key.

The point is that you post was all wet, and garbled if one actually understands the subject. Your version of "concisely expounded" apparently does not include a requirement to be "vaguely correct".

8. A wave function is the probabilistic measure of a superposition. To the extent that a wave function is collapsed, the superposition is also proportionally collapsed. The collapse of a wave function only occurs when a quantum measurement is taken.
My concept of wave function as a probability spread comes from Mr Richard P. Feynman's April 3rd, 1962 lecture about the Thomas Young double slit experiment. I have the Six Easy Pieces CD set. Superposition, of course, comes from the Copenhagen interpretation that say's the particle actually does go through both slit's. I was guessing about "wave function collapse".
Any and all quantum measurements are subject to the uncertainty principle, that the product of the uncertainty in the quanta's position and the uncertainty in the quanta's velocity must be greater than Planck's constant. If we measure the quanta's position with complete accuracy, we have stopped it dead and have zero data concerning it's velocity. If we measure the quanta's velocity with complete accuracy, we have measured some effect of it's passing without interacting with the quanta in the slightest, and have zero data concerning it's position.
All of that is an attempted explanation of; (Delta x)(Delta p)=>h. That formulation also came from Six Easy Pieces.
Since any measurement of a quanta, even as static data, still contains the probability spread of the inherent uncertainty, the wave function is never wholly collapsed. The uncertainty of a system of multiple quanta will equal, not the sum of uncertainty's, But the product of the uncertainty's. Therefore, where the total collapse of a single wave function or superposition is theoretically impossible, the total collapse of a system of wave function's or superpositions is several orders of theoretically impossible.
And here I have blurred the line between data and reality, admittedly violating my own precept. That the map is not the territory. But in the first chapter of his book, "The Road To Reality", Mr Penrose discusses Platonic philosophy. Sinned as the greats I have.
In quantum physics, all forces, except gravity, are actuated through the exchange of quanta between quanta. The collapse of the wave function of the system would result in the disexistentiation of the quanta and thus also the forces.
In the standard model, forces are mediated with particles. Photons are exchanged in electroweak interactions. Gluons mediate the color force. And I forget the rest.

Admittedly, half of what I said, I made up. But consider the post I was answering. Poor Mr schiz0id was barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest. While I cannot yet help him find the right tree, I can point him to the correct forest.
If you, Mr DrRocket, would learn to speak halfwit, than many halfwit's might learn some trig' maybe? A^2+B^2=C^2. Or in English; The sum of the squares of the two sides of a right angle triangle must equal the square of the hypotenuse. Funny thing about the Pythagorean's, they didn't believe in irrational numbers.

9. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
A wave function is the probabilistic measure of a superposition. To the extent that a wave function is collapsed, the superposition is also proportionally collapsed. The collapse of a wave function only occurs when a quantum measurement is taken.
My concept of wave function as a probability spread comes from Mr Richard P. Feynman's April 3rd, 1962 lecture about the Thomas Young double slit experiment. I have the Six Easy Pieces CD set. Superposition, of course, comes from the Copenhagen interpretation that say's the particle actually does go through both slit's. I was guessing about "wave function collapse".
Any and all quantum measurements are subject to the uncertainty principle, that the product of the uncertainty in the quanta's position and the uncertainty in the quanta's velocity must be greater than Planck's constant. If we measure the quanta's position with complete accuracy, we have stopped it dead and have zero data concerning it's velocity. If we measure the quanta's velocity with complete accuracy, we have measured some effect of it's passing without interacting with the quanta in the slightest, and have zero data concerning it's position.
All of that is an attempted explanation of; (Delta x)(Delta p)=>h. That formulation also came from Six Easy Pieces.
Since any measurement of a quanta, even as static data, still contains the probability spread of the inherent uncertainty, the wave function is never wholly collapsed. The uncertainty of a system of multiple quanta will equal, not the sum of uncertainty's, But the product of the uncertainty's. Therefore, where the total collapse of a single wave function or superposition is theoretically impossible, the total collapse of a system of wave function's or superpositions is several orders of theoretically impossible.
And here I have blurred the line between data and reality, admittedly violating my own precept. That the map is not the territory. But in the first chapter of his book, "The Road To Reality", Mr Penrose discusses Platonic philosophy. Sinned as the greats I have.
In quantum physics, all forces, except gravity, are actuated through the exchange of quanta between quanta. The collapse of the wave function of the system would result in the disexistentiation of the quanta and thus also the forces.
In the standard model, forces are mediated with particles. Photons are exchanged in electroweak interactions. Gluons mediate the color force. And I forget the rest.

Admittedly, half of what I said, I made up. But consider the post I was answering. Poor Mr schiz0id was barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest. While I cannot yet help him find the right tree, I can point him to the correct forest.
If you, Mr DrRocket, would learn to speak halfwit, than many halfwit's might learn some trig' maybe? A^2+B^2=C^2. Or in English; The sum of the squares of the two sides of a right angle triangle must equal the square of the hypotenuse. Funny thing about the Pythagorean's, they didn't believe in irrational numbers.
1. Don't stop with "Six Easy Pieces". Get the entire Feynman Lectures on Physics. It is well worth the price.

2. Don't stop at chapter 1 in Penrose's The Road to Reality either. The relevant material is in chapter 22.

3. In the electroweak force, it is not only photons that carry the force. Photons carry the electromagnetic force. The weak force is carried by three other particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

It was quite clear that about half of your post was "made up". That was precisely my point. A garbled response to a garbled question. That does not point anyone to the right forest. It rather obscures the trees with smoke.

10. 1. Don't stop with "Six Easy Pieces". Get the entire Feynman Lectures on Physics. It is well worth the price.
I also have "The Very Best of the Feynman Lectures" on CD. Unfortunately there's no accompanying manuscript. My prize is Mr Feynman's "Lost Lecture" in which he proves elliptical orbits with the conical sections. I've listened to the CD numerous times. I really need to read the manuscript now that I have time for it.
2. Don't stop at chapter 1 in Penrose's The Road to Reality either. The relevant material is in chapter 22.
Wow, I just skimmed it quickly. I wish he would have started with that chapter. I plan on reading it carefully.
3. In the electroweak force, it is not only photons that carry the force. Photons carry the electromagnetic force. The weak force is carried by three other particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
I plan on starting a new thread about "The Wiki". Note that I say "plan", no promises.
As far as forces mediated through particulate exchange, I know that classical physics doesn't translate well into "modern" physics, but it seem's strange that attraction could arise from "whacking" objects together? IE pool ball's.
Neils Bohr had theorized, that it was in fact impossible to elucidate quantum mechanics, in any way but the esoteric mathematics used. Then Mr Feynman comes along with his diagrams. Pissed Bohr off to no end, I've heard.
P.S. The "smoke" line is a good use of metaphor, I'm impressed.

11. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
I also have "The Very Best of the Feynman Lectures" on CD. Unfortunately there's no accompanying manuscript. My prize is Mr Feynman's "Lost Lecture" in which he proves elliptical orbits with the conical sections. I've listened to the CD numerous times. I really need to read the manuscript now that I have time for it.
essed.
The Feynman Lectures on Physics ARE the manuscripts for the CD's (except for the "lost lecture" which is a separate book.

Feynman gave a class for freshman physics students at Cal Tech in the early 1960's. Leighton and Sands kept notes which, with help from Feynman, were turned into a three-volume physics text, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. The books have been available for many years, the audio tapes and CD having been released much more recently. The books are excellent, in my opinion some of the best physics books at any level ever produced. They are so good that, with some reading between the lines, they have been used by graduate students to study for the general examinations. Feynman basically took his rather encyclopedic knowledge of physics and boiled it down to a level at which it could be presented to freshmen. It is that good.

12. As far as forces mediated through particulate exchange, I know that classical physics doesn't translate well into "modern" physics, but it seem's strange that attraction could arise from "whacking" objects together? IE pool ball's.
The above statement is entirely interrogative. Let's imagine two people sitting about ten feet from each other on a zero friction surface, the classic frozen pond. Let's have these two people toss a basketball back and forth. Classically, they would begin to move apart. But in particle exchange things can mutually attract. How doe's that work? I'm not doubting, I'm just asking. 8)

13. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
As far as forces mediated through particulate exchange, I know that classical physics doesn't translate well into "modern" physics, but it seem's strange that attraction could arise from "whacking" objects together? IE pool ball's.
The above statement is entirely interrogative. Let's imagine two people sitting about ten feet from each other on a zero friction surface, the classic frozen pond. Let's have these two people toss a basketball back and forth. Classically, they would begin to move apart. But in particle exchange things can mutually attract. How doe's that work? I'm not doubting, I'm just asking. 8)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...particles.html

14. "Can nature possibly be, as absurd as she seem's, in these quantum experiment's"?
--Neils Bohr--

15. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
"Can nature possibly be, as absurd as she seem's, in these quantum experiment's"?
--Neils Bohr--
There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law

16. Ah yes, studying physics is like trying to write the numerical value of infinity. We may all be doomed to agnosis. Here in this forum we must understand, that mastery is a myth, and practice is infinite. Good luck to us all.

17. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Ah yes, studying physics is like trying to write the numerical value of infinity. We may all be doomed to agnosis. Here in this forum we must understand, that mastery is a myth, and practice is infinite. Good luck to us all.
Writing the numerical value of infinity is easy. In fact there are quite a few numerical values of infinity. See "cardinal numbers". A good reference is Naive Set Theory by Paul Halmos.

18. There goes science and math destroying poetry again. And can't they just pick one freaking alphabet. Roman, Greek, and now Hebrew. Make up a lot of three letter words. Dimensional consistency across multiple languages, and alphabets. Metric and standard wrenches, mixed up in the toolbox everywhere. ARRGH!
Well anyway, how about expressing Aleph Null as an integer? Technically it might be possible, but it would take forever, maybe?

19. so a system of superpositions cannot exist or cannot collapse?

20. Neither. Superpositions can exist and tend to collapse quite quickly.

21. but.. why can't a system of two particles be seen as if the entire system is another, larger wave that is in a superposition of the two particles

22. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
There goes science and math destroying poetry again. And can't they just pick one freaking alphabet. Roman, Greek, and now Hebrew. Make up a lot of three letter words. Dimensional consistency across multiple languages, and alphabets. Metric and standard wrenches, mixed up in the toolbox everywhere. ARRGH!
Well anyway, how about expressing Aleph Null as an integer? Technically it might be possible, but it would take forever, maybe?
The whole point is that aleph null is NOT an integer. It is the smallest infinite cardinal.

23. the childish power struggle between your egos hints at a lack of self-reflection and awareness of your own ego's tendency to create illogical justifications of anything you do and say, blindly making you honestly believe that what you are doing or saying is justified, so far as to nitpick over spelling errors or minor details just to prove..what? who's smarter? who cares? what you know as intelligence is intangible and even the 'dumbest' people are worth listening to for their creativity. The biggest problem with the human race today is their lack of awareness of what their ego really is and their need to prove dominance. No one seems to realize that no matter how intelligent, dominating, powerful you are among competition within your own species, it is impossible to be any better than what the entire human race is capable of collectively.

i highly expect a response that will fit perfectly as an example of justification via the ego. throw away your ego, your need for social recognition and your instinctual drive to be the alpha-male and answer my damn questions.

what i think i'm trying to ask is about the issues with relativity on the quantum scale. I want to know how multiple superpositions interact with each other in regards to systems, as well as how it effects wave-collapse of the entire system and whether or not wave collapse must occur for each of the parts before they can act as a system.

24. what i think i'm trying to ask is about the issues with relativity on the quantum scale.
Don't quote me on this but... I have read somewhere that Quantum Electrodynamics, or QED deal's with Relativity on a quantum scale. Richard Feynman was involved with it's development.
The whole point is that aleph null is NOT an integer. It is the smallest infinite cardinal.
Rigor of definition, I get ya.

25. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
what i think i'm trying to ask is about the issues with relativity on the quantum scale.
Don't quote me on this but... I have read somewhere that Quantum Electrodynamics, or QED deal's with Relativity on a quantum scale. Richard Feynman was involved with it's development.
Quantum field theories in general, and QED is the first and perhaps best known example are motivated by the need to have a quantum theory that is compatible with special relativity. Another name for quantum field theories is relativistic quantum mechanics.

NOBODY knows how to make quantum mechanics compatible with general relativity.

For a layman's overview of QED take a look at the sticky thread Physics Lectures on (QED) here. It provides video of Feyman expalining the subject about as simply as it is possible to do so. Or read his book QED which is based on the lectures.

26. My thinking is that our observation of particles is the observation of interference patterns in the superposition of the wave form, and particles within the same system are waveforms in resonance with each other.

Just thinking out loud with no real basis, other than using logic to reverse engineer a universe that makes sense into what we know of our own. Thank you for your referrals.

27. Originally Posted by schiz0yd
My thinking is that our observation of particles is the observation of interference patterns in the superposition of the wave form, and particles within the same system are waveforms in resonance with each other.

Just thinking out loud with no real basis, other than using logic to reverse engineer a universe that makes sense into what we know of our own. Thank you for your referrals.

28. Quantum field theories in general, and QED is the first and perhaps best known example are motivated by the need to have a quantum theory that is compatible with special relativity. Another name for quantum field theories is relativistic quantum mechanics.

NOBODY knows how to make quantum mechanics compatible with general relativity.
Are quantum field theory, and quantum mechanics, Incompatible? Or are they just different way's of looking at the same thing?
My thinking is that our observation of particles is the observation of interference patterns in the superposition of the wave form, and particles within the same system are waveforms in resonance with each other.
Where wave forms "interfere" the wave amplitude is reduced or even eliminated. Where wave forms "resonate" the wave amplitude is increased. "Superposition" doe's not involve "interference", or "resonance". Superposition is like peaceful coexistence. Waves do not peacefully coexist, they resonate, and interfere.

29. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Quantum field theories in general, and QED is the first and perhaps best known example are motivated by the need to have a quantum theory that is compatible with special relativity. Another name for quantum field theories is relativistic quantum mechanics.

NOBODY knows how to make quantum mechanics compatible with general relativity.
Are quantum field theory, and quantum mechanics, Incompatible? Or are they just different way's of looking at the same thing?
They are basically the same thing.

Quantum mechanics means either the first quantum theories that were formulated, or more generally anything to do with quantum phenomena.

Quantum mechanics, as presented in introductory text books is a non-relativistic theory, based on solving the Schrodinger equation.

Quantum field theory is the extension that is required to formulate a relativistic quantum theory. It is considerably more complex than elementary quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's equation does not carry over to the relativistic case.

But often 'quantum mechanics" is used in a general sense that includes quantum field theories.

There are two main quantum field theories, One is the electroweak theory that explains the weak and electrromagnetic forces, and it includes quantum electrodynamics as a special case.

The other is quantum chromodynamics which is the theory of the strong interaction among quarks.

My thinking is that our observation of particles is the observation of interference patterns in the superposition of the wave form, and particles within the same system are waveforms in resonance with each other.
Where wave forms "interfere" the wave amplitude is reduced or even eliminated. Where wave forms "resonate" the wave amplitude is increased. "Superposition" doe's not involve "interference", or "resonance". Superposition is like peaceful coexistence. Waves do not peacefully coexist, they resonate, and interfere.[/quote]

Superposition is a fancy name for "addition". A superposition of states is a sum of two state functions.

30. Superposition is a fancy name for "addition". A superposition of states is a sum of two state functions.
Gee Doc, you should have said that at the beginning. Apparently, I've read some book somewhere, or watched some show that contained a bogus definition of superposition.

31. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Superposition is a fancy name for "addition". A superposition of states is a sum of two state functions.
Gee Doc, you should have said that at the beginning. Apparently, I've read some book somewhere, or watched some show that contained a bogus definition of superposition.
Probably not really bogus, but probably sensationalized. The idea is that the state function is a sum of two eigenfunctions of the operator that corresponds to the measurement that you are intending to make. When you make the measurement you get one of the eigenvalues and the state function becomes the corresponding eigenfunction. But there is nothing magic going on, although you might think otherwise from all the hoopla.

Nevertheless quantum mechanics produces some weird effects. Superposition of two eigenfunctions (still just the sum of the two) is a factor in some of the quantum weirdness.

32. Are superpositions involved in the analysis of single-particle, double-slit experiments?

33. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Are superpositions involved in the analysis of single-particle, double-slit experiments?
Sure.

The idea is that the state function describing the photon (or electron or whatever), is a sum of two functions, one of which describes it as going through slit A and on through slit B. Each is an eigenfunction of the position operator. When you take a measurement you get the eigenvalue corresponding to one or the other eigenfunction, and the wave function "collapses" to that eigenstate. If you dont take such a measurement, then the state function is the sum of the two eigenstates, which are described by the Schrodinger wave equation, and you get a normal wave interference pattern, in terms of probabilities, at the detection screen. When many particles are involved you see the classic wave interference pattern build up on the screen --- particle by particle -- as seen in the pictures at the bottom of this Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

This is a very simple example of what Feynman calls a "sum over histories". It can get more complicated, but that is the basic idea.

34. Thank's for the answer. I think I get it. 8)

35. My friend wanted to throw his own opinion/question in here as well:

"I think when quantum particles collapse into a system then that system IS a superstate of each particles attributes PLUS the effect of the environment that the random collection of particles make.
if a single particle in a system is different, so are the overall probabilities of the system's eventual collapse.
Then this system can be seen as a single partice from other, further frames of reference, that is capable of further collapse within another, larger system-this could be the everlasting cycle of self alikeness that is fractals "

he's only 16 so if he said something in the wrong context cut him some slack. I think it sounds pretty feasible.

36. "I think when quantum particles collapse into a system then that system IS a superstate of each particles attributes PLUS the effect of the environment that the random collection of particles make.
I really don't understand what your friend is saying here, But this is my understanding;

A "superstate" is a mathematical concept that defines a "system" (And that system can be a single particle.) before any "collapse" has occurred. "Particle" and "quanta" while having different rigorous definitions can be generally considered as synonymous.

37. I think he's basically saying that the universe repeats itself as a fractal when seen from small to large, so that eventually what we see on the small scale may repeat itself on the macro scale. he's not saying that is necessarily true but it's my own metaphor to explain his thinking. he's trying to say that wave function collapse is related to something that all systems do at all scales, allowing each system to be seen as a particle from a different frame of reference, collapsed from the more dominant probability that is only visible upon closer observation.

In my own additional thought, it could even be imagined that the individual probabilities are outcomes of even smaller events that we cannot perceive. There is no way in current science to prove or disprove that super small forms of life exist at the quantum level and their free will is what causes indeterminism.

38. There is no way in current science to prove or disprove that super small forms of life exist at the quantum level
I myself have considered the possibility of infinite levels of scalature. But look up Planck's constant, it is the smallest value of the existential currently known. All known measurement's of mass, or energy, correspond to whole number unit's of Planck's constant.

39. levels of scalature as you put it is one dimensional in the sense that it is the three dimensions of space combined into one dimension. if planck's constant were to be visualized as the origin of a graph, infinity is still able to be plotted on that graph. However, I think planck's constant may have more to do with the constant speed of light rather than scale, since it is based on ratios of energy.

40. Originally Posted by schiz0yd
My friend wanted to throw his own opinion/question in here as well:

"I think when quantum particles collapse into a system then that system IS a superstate of each particles attributes PLUS the effect of the environment that the random collection of particles make.
if a single particle in a system is different, so are the overall probabilities of the system's eventual collapse.
Then this system can be seen as a single partice from other, further frames of reference, that is capable of further collapse within another, larger system-this could be the everlasting cycle of self alikeness that is fractals "

he's only 16 so if he said something in the wrong context cut him some slack. I think it sounds pretty feasible.
It is not pretty feasible. It is just word salad.

Particle do not collapse. It the wavefunction that collapses, in the Copehagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The rest of that is just gibberish, though one might (possibly with the aid of drugs) construe it as something vaguely (very vaguely) interpret it as reminsicent of Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

41. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by schiz0yd
My friend wanted to throw his own opinion/question in here as well:

"I think when quantum particles collapse into a system then that system IS a superstate of each particles attributes PLUS the effect of the environment that the random collection of particles make.
if a single particle in a system is different, so are the overall probabilities of the system's eventual collapse.
Then this system can be seen as a single partice from other, further frames of reference, that is capable of further collapse within another, larger system-this could be the everlasting cycle of self alikeness that is fractals "

he's only 16 so if he said something in the wrong context cut him some slack. I think it sounds pretty feasible.
It is not pretty feasible. It is just word salad.

Particle do not collapse. It the wavefunction that collapses, in the Copehagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The rest of that is just gibberish, though one might (possibly with the aid of drugs) construe it as something vaguely (very vaguely) interpret it as reminsicent of Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Like I said, he's only 16 and I'm not surprised he used the wrong terminology. He was talking about when a wavefunction collapses into a particle, and that particle becomes part of a system.

Also, I don't think drugs are necessary to interpret something this way; just an imagination.

42. h=6.62606896*10^-34 in joule seconds.

43. Originally Posted by schiz0yd
Like I said, he's only 16 and I'm not surprised he used the wrong terminology. He was talking about when a wavefunction collapses into a particle, and that particle becomes part of a system.

Also, I don't think drugs are necessary to interpret something this way; just an imagination.
Wave functions do not collapse into particles.

This more gibberish.

There is a difference between imagination and hallucination.

Imagination is a big part of research science, but it must be imaginatiion that operates under the constraints of logic and what is known.

Dementia also involves imagination, but it is not conducive to science.

The problem is not terminology. The problem is lack of understanding of what is going on.

Before imagination is useful in science it must be preceded by some understanding of the fundamentals and in particular understanding of what is already known, and what is not known.

44. I was under the impression that an observable particle is the single occurrence that the wave function collapses to. if this is wrong please tell me why. I didn't expect his idea to revolutionize science, I was just looking for something for him to apply it to, and the many-worlds interpretation will work. thanks.

45. Also, DrRocket, when you said that it could be vaguely connected to the many-worlds interpretation, were you thinking that in the sense that each quantum probability would be eventually played out on some scale within a universe of "infinite scalature" as GiantEvil put it?

I'm also curious to know your opinion on how fractals play into the nature of the universe, if at all.

46. Originally Posted by schiz0yd
levels of scalature as you put it is one dimensional in the sense that it is the three dimensions of space combined into one dimension. if planck's constant were to be visualized as the origin of a graph, infinity is still able to be plotted on that graph. However, I think planck's constant may have more to do with the constant speed of light rather than scale, since it is based on ratios of energy.
Either you or someone else has already brought up the "everything looks like everything else only at different scales" idea many times, and have been shot down many times. It's simply not true. Atoms look nothing like solar systems, and neither look anything like galaxies. The only similarity is that we use the word orbit to describe all three (and only in the same sense in the latter two cases).

BTW, there's more to fractals than just smaller copies of the same thing.

47. I myself have considered the possibility of infinite levels of scalature. But look up Planck's constant, it is the smallest value of the existential currently known. All known measurement's of mass, or energy, correspond to whole number unit's of Planck's constant.
Notice I said "considered". The presence of a discreet quantity, Planck's constant, indicate's that infinite scalature does not exist. I probably should have been clearer.

48. Originally Posted by schiz0yd
Also, DrRocket, when you said that it could be vaguely connected to the many-worlds interpretation, were you thinking that in the sense that each quantum probability would be eventually played out on some scale within a universe of "infinite scalature" as GiantEvil put it?

I'm also curious to know your opinion on how fractals play into the nature of the universe, if at all.

There is no such thing as "infinite scalature". I doubt that "scalature" is a word.

49. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
There is no way in current science to prove or disprove that super small forms of life exist at the quantum level
I myself have considered the possibility of infinite levels of scalature. But look up Planck's constant, it is the smallest value of the existential currently known. All known measurement's of mass, or energy, correspond to whole number unit's of Planck's constant.
Rubbish

50. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Either you or someone else has already brought up the "everything looks like everything else only at different scales" idea many times, and have been shot down many times. It's simply not true. Atoms look nothing like solar systems, and neither look anything like galaxies. The only similarity is that we use the word orbit to describe all three (and only in the same sense in the latter two cases).

BTW, there's more to fractals than just smaller copies of the same thing.

The only other thing I've ever brought up was a link to a site that compares atoms to stars, and that is just images that speak for themselves:

"The Space Telescope Science Institute recently released beautiful and enigmatic images of stars called Planetary Nebulae, which are ejecting their outer envelopes.
In 1989 a fractal cosmological model predicated that Planetary Nebulae shapes would bear a strong resemblance to visual representations of electron probability densities in the atom. The latter refer to the probabilities for finding the electron at a given location with respect to the nucleus of the atom."

it is here: http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/stars2/index.html

Also, here's a link to the main site from this, featuring the work of a cosmologist who has spent 30 years on the concept that "the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales, and all other fundamental Scales of nature’s infinite hierarchy, are rigorously interrelated by a new symmetry principle referred to as discrete cosmological self-similarity", which seems to be what you have said is not true. I'm not saying that it is true, but he is, and I thought it would be relevant considering that the content seems to refute your statement and it is backed with what seems to be a lot of evidence and mathematical hoo-hah that i'm sure someone like DrRocket will be able to validate. (if it's even valid)

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/

I know more about fractals than you seem to have assumed I do. They have been one of my greatest obsessions for a while.

There is no such thing as "infinite scalature". I doubt that "scalature" is a word.
I know that it is not a word, that's why I gave GiantEvil all the credit for coining the term.

But if the universe is constantly expanding then over an infinite amount of time there will be infinite increase in scale. In this context infinite 'scalature' is possible.

51. I suppose you see certain principles, patterns, coming back always no matter the scale.

52. I guess. The forces of the universe seem to be striving to balance everything out at all scales despite the relevant laws of physics for that scale. Other than that, I dunno. Maybe I misunderstand you.

53. Originally Posted by schiz0yd
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Either you or someone else has already brought up the "everything looks like everything else only at different scales" idea many times, and have been shot down many times. It's simply not true. Atoms look nothing like solar systems, and neither look anything like galaxies. The only similarity is that we use the word orbit to describe all three (and only in the same sense in the latter two cases).

BTW, there's more to fractals than just smaller copies of the same thing.

The only other thing I've ever brought up was a link to a site that compares atoms to stars, and that is just images that speak for themselves:

"The Space Telescope Science Institute recently released beautiful and enigmatic images of stars called Planetary Nebulae, which are ejecting their outer envelopes.
In 1989 a fractal cosmological model predicated that Planetary Nebulae shapes would bear a strong resemblance to visual representations of electron probability densities in the atom. The latter refer to the probabilities for finding the electron at a given location with respect to the nucleus of the atom."

it is here: http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/stars2/index.html

Also, here's a link to the main site from this, featuring the work of a cosmologist who has spent 30 years on the concept that "the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales, and all other fundamental Scales of nature’s infinite hierarchy, are rigorously interrelated by a new symmetry principle referred to as discrete cosmological self-similarity", which seems to be what you have said is not true. I'm not saying that it is true, but he is, and I thought it would be relevant considering that the content seems to refute your statement and it is backed with what seems to be a lot of evidence and mathematical hoo-hah that i'm sure someone like DrRocket will be able to validate. (if it's even valid)

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/

I know more about fractals than you seem to have assumed I do. They have been one of my greatest obsessions for a while.

There is no such thing as "infinite scalature". I doubt that "scalature" is a word.
I know that it is not a word, that's why I gave GiantEvil all the credit for coining the term.

But if the universe is constantly expanding then over an infinite amount of time there will be infinite increase in scale. In this context infinite 'scalature' is possible.
Obsessing about something and knowing about it are two different things. And just because one person has spent 30 years working on something doesn't mean much either. If you want to convince me, link to peer-reviewed articles, not personal web sites.

Even if what you say is true, that's 2 levels of scale that kinda look alike. So what? That's not a fractal, and it doesn't really mean anything.

Also, there isn't infinite time. Eventually the universe will die out. We don't know how exactly yet (there are 2 or 3 possibilities) but there's no visible chance of it lasting forever.

54. Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Obsessing about something and knowing about it are two different things. And just because one person has spent 30 years working on something doesn't mean much either. If you want to convince me, link to peer-reviewed articles, not personal web sites.

Even if what you say is true, that's 2 levels of scale that kinda look alike. So what? That's not a fractal, and it doesn't really mean anything.

Also, there isn't infinite time. Eventually the universe will die out. We don't know how exactly yet (there are 2 or 3 possibilities) but there's no visible chance of it lasting forever.
Hey, I don't really care if I convince you or not; I'm just trying to discuss these things for my own understanding, not yours. If something is interesting and/or relevant, I bring it here to hear what kind of criticism you guys can come up with. I even said that I don't think what that guy is researching is true, but he thinks so and I found it was relevant to your post. You've expressed that you don't agree with it but only by calling it doubtful. I'm not trying to convince you, he is. He obviously doesn't get much publicity though so I gave it to him.

As for the problem with infinite time, how do 'we' know that time is not infinite? I thought Einstein stated that our universe was infinite, and I took this to mean that spacetime is infinite. Will all particles annihilate? Does spacetime cease to exist without energy? I've never heard that time will eventually stop, other than Terrence McKenna's timewave theory where he states that the universe will reach infinite complexity and time as we know it will cease to exist as anything and everything that can possibly occur happens at all once.

55. There was obviously a beginning. The big bang is widely accepted and well supported.

No current theory suggests that the universe will last indefinitely. Either it will fall apart or even out. In either case, past that it's meaningless to talk about things like similarity at different scales.

Originally Posted by schiz0yd
If multiple quantum particles which are each individually collapsed from superstates form a system, is that system then effectively in a superstate of each particle's attributes, capable of wave-function collapse as a whole system? Also, would this mean that wave function collapse would occur in the form of the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces between all collapsed waveforms of all systems in the universe? I know this isn't something proven that I can get a quick yes or no on but it makes a lot of sense to me.
You started with this. You said it makes a lot of sense to you, when in fact it makes no sense at all. That means that you have some misconceptions about some basic definitions.

After that, you asked a couple more similar questions then started posting links, which I can only assume are meant to support your iterpretations of things. That's where my responses are coming from at least.

Anyway, you seem to be confused as to what particles, wave functions, systems, superpositions and probably a couple others mean. It might be a good idea to back up and understand the concepts better before asking bigger questions. Unfortunately, I can't offer any real advice, because, while I understand them a little, I don't understand them nearly enough to teach it to anyone else. If you ask the right questions though, I'm sure there are people here that can help.

56. Originally Posted by schiz0yd

As for the problem with infinite time, how do 'we' know that time is not infinite? I thought Einstein stated that our universe was infinite, and I took this to mean that spacetime is infinite. Will all particles annihilate? Does spacetime cease to exist without energy? I've never heard that time will eventually stop, other than Terrence McKenna's timewave theory where he states that the universe will reach infinite complexity and time as we know it will cease to exist as anything and everything that can possibly occur happens at all once.
Neither Einstein nor anyone else who knows what he is talking about said any such thing.

Nobody knows if the universe is finite or infinite. Nobody knows if the universe will go on forever or not. These are major open questions in cosmology. Given the advent of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and the hypothesis of dark energy, we are farther than ever from understanding what is going on. If the expansion conntinues to acceelerate for ever then the universe will so on forever, but not in any form that you would consider to resemble what you see now.

Your statement exhibit rather gross confusin regarding what spacetime is. You need to read a book. Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps, Einstein's Outrageous Legacy is nice discussion of general relativity for a lay audience that makes no demands on mathematical background. You should at the very least read something at that general level. That should at least put you in a position to ask a meaningful question.

57. My apologies for repeating myself, but I don't want to be misunderstood. I do not think that there is infinite scalature. Yes I made up that word, I thought it might be a real word, But I find it nowhere other than my own head. But every word in every language was made up by somebody sometime. So even though the word "scalature" is being first used in a concept I consider bogus, I am proud of my word "scalature", and think it should be a real word.

Planck's constant may not be the last word on a basic discreet value for the whole of the existential universe. After I do some more research though, I believe I will be able to successfully argue the point of a discreet over continuum based universe.

This leads to a problem. I need to deal with numbers of possibly 50 or 60 digits in length. My calculator just won't do it. I need a computer calculator program that handles long strings of digits. though they might be very tiny numbers. Help please.

58. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Planck's constant may not be the last word on a basic discreet value for the whole of the existential universe. After I do some more research though, I believe I will be able to successfully argue the point of a discreet over continuum based universe.
You won't. This idea has been investigated. No one has been able to formulate physics on a lattice model, at least so far.

59. You won't. This idea has been investigated. No one has been able to formulate physics on a lattice model, at least so far.
I notice you added the qualifier "at least so far". If nothing else, this should lead to some interesting questions about discreet mathematics and combinatorics. And I do have till I die to work on it. And now I know that I am working on a "Lattice Model" of physics.
This leads to a problem. I need to deal with numbers of possibly 50 or 60 digits in length. My calculator just won't do it. I need a computer calculator program that handles long strings of digits. though they might be very tiny numbers. Help please.

60. Originally Posted by MagiMaster

You started with this. You said it makes a lot of sense to you, when in fact it makes no sense at all. That means that you have some misconceptions about some basic definitions.
It makes sense to me. I agree that it doesn't make sense, but to you. I know what I'm visualizing, and those were my best guesses as to how to describe it. Eventually I will find a way to describe what I'm picturing when I find out what the technical terms are for whatever it is that's going on in my mental imagery. It's much easier for me to express my thoughts through art. So like I said, it makes sense, but to me and not you, much like how some things scientists say make sense to them and not to me.

Neither Einstein nor anyone else who knows what he is talking about said any such thing.
I thought Einstein said: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Granted he doesn't know for sure, but he seems to be leaning towards infinity rather than a finite universe. A finite universe makes absolutely no sense to me.

There was obviously a beginning. The big bang is widely accepted and well supported.
So was the theory that the earth was flat. Also, there's no way to prove that nothing happened prior to the big bang, nor can we disprove that what we see as our observable universe is only a tiny part of the bigger picture, like m-theory suggests. We thought our galaxy was the entire universe at one point. We put a lot of belief into conclusions based on only what we know for sure and exclude a lot of what is still possible.

I am proud of my word "scalature", and think it should be a real word.
This made me laugh. I like it too, and I like your idea. Any word we make up to describe something that a word doesn't exist for, should instantly be a new word.

You need to read a book. Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps, Einstein's Outrageous Legacy is nice discussion of general relativity for a lay audience that makes no demands on mathematical background. You should at the very least read something at that general level. That should at least put you in a position to ask a meaningful question.
I'm currently reading a lot of books, mostly on psychology, so I'm going to have to put that one on my list for the future with all the many others people from this site have suggested or me. I find that asking questions on here the way I have been doing teaches me things much, much faster than books or a search engine can, since I have the chance to ask specific questions and get specific answers that help point me in the right direction. Like I said before, mostly what I'm doing is trying to figure out what I'm visualizing means in science terms because I highly doubt I could ever describe it using layman's terms. Then again, I don't know if I could ever describe it accurately, since many things in our experience are beyond description. But I'm optimistic.

Basically I had this idea that particles are some kind of little 'packets' of energy created by a perfectly uniform spherical source of wave energy where the energy is kept concentrated at the center point by the consistent flow of energy into it. This is what I meant by our observation of particles being interference patterns in superpositions, because I thought superpositions were waves and the interference patterns were what would be going on at the center. I still don't know if I'm describing it right since I have no idea if waves would be the type of energy source that would do this but that seems to be what matter is made of.

61. Originally Posted by schiz0yd
So was the theory that the earth was flat.
wrong

Originally Posted by MagiMaster
There was obviously a beginning.
Obviously? Why?

62. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
You won't. This idea has been investigated. No one has been able to formulate physics on a lattice model, at least so far.
I notice you added the qualifier "at least so far". If nothing else, this should lead to some interesting questions about discreet mathematics and combinatorics. And I do have till I die to work on it. And now I know that I am working on a "Lattice Model" of physics.
This leads to a problem. I need to deal with numbers of possibly 50 or 60 digits in length. My calculator just won't do it. I need a computer calculator program that handles long strings of digits. though they might be very tiny numbers. Help please.
I said "so far" because deep research always has the possibility to turn up a surprise.

However, be aware that this issue has been considered in detail by people who know what they are doing and have a great deal of education. It is part of the ongoing research that is directed towards unification of general relativity and quantum field theories, rather sophisticated stuff.

There are lots of interesting questions in combinatorics, for people interested in combinatorics. Formulating physics in those terms is as difficult a problem as you are goint to find. The attempts to do this have resulted in indications that it will not work. That could be wrong, but if so, the reasons are very subtle, and any progress towards such a formulation is likely to require an equally subtle and very sophisticated approach. In short, as an amateur your chances of finding such an approach are about zero.

Before you can seriously "work on a Lattice Model of physics" or any model of physics you need a deep understanding of what is already known, and in the case of fundamental physical laws you also need a deep understanding of modern mathematics. Keep studying and you might get there, but you have a very long way to go. This is a genuinely difficult problem.

63. As I said, I have till I die. Which hopefully is a long time away. But as to calculating huge strings of digits, do I just need a big dry-erase board?

64. Originally Posted by Twit of wit
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
There was obviously a beginning.
Obviously? Why?
I think I addressed that in the next sentence after the one you quoted.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil
As I said, I have till I die. Which hopefully is a long time away. But as to calculating huge strings of digits, do I just need a big dry-erase board?
No, you need to use scientific notation. The biggest problem with anything on a cubic lattice is that a cubic lattice (or any regular lattice) is not isotropic and the universe is to the best of our ability to measure it..

65. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
As I said, I have till I die. Which hopefully is a long time away. But as to calculating huge strings of digits, do I just need a big dry-erase board?
That would work.

But why do you want to do such a thing ?

66. I did this h/c^2=M. And then I divided the mass of an electron by my M. I got a whole number,I got excited. But later I realized I forgot to square c. I retried my calculations again with c=3*10^8, Which squared is 9*10^16. And then I don't get a whole number. But if I rigorously square c, 299792458 ms. I might get a whole number. Even if I don't, there's still some uncertainty to play with in the electron mass. Big dry erase board? I'm ready. But I would prefer a program, input digits, bamm, answer's!

67. Both the Windows calculator and Microsoft Excel can handle fairly large numbers (the calculator can square c easily enough). If that's still not enough, look for a bignum package for Java, C++ or whatever programming language you know.

68. How embarrassing, but convenient. Under my nose this whole time. Thank's.

 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement