Seasons

Irina,

Once again, I don't have a wave-only theory. My view is that it's the wave, psi, which propagates.

Not a "wave-only theory", but a theory explained entirely by the propagation of a single wave? You make no reference to anything but a single wave anywhere in the explanation of your view (except to dismiss the strawman notion of "spit bullets".) Does that not seem evidently contradictory to you?

And once again I must emphasise that you are confusing and combining waves. Psi is the probability wave, not the electromagnetic wave-nature of the quantum (here "pilot wave", though I would emphasise there is no divisibility of 'pilot'/'vehicle',)

"The carrier of the non-local instantaneous action is the wavefunction similar to the de Broglie pilot wave and the reaction is the net observable local space result. The Schrodinger wave equation does not describe an ordinary electromagnetic wave but a probability wave, and the probability wave determines all of the action and reaction of the total electrogravitational interaction."
http://www.electrogravity.com/AVECWAVE/AVecWave.pdf (my emphasis.)

Furthermore, psi does not propagate (even if we choose to regard it as, in common parlance, a wave.) It may be similar (related even,) but psi is not the propagated em-wave - it is "constant throughout the whole of spacetime" (thus by definition unpropagated,) vide:

"In accordance with this probability interpretation, it is not uncommon for the wavefunction to be called a 'probability wave'. However, I think that this is a very unsatisfactory description. In the first place psi(x) itself is complex, and so it certainly cannot be a probability. Moreover, the phase of psi (up to an overall constant multiplying factor) is an essential ingredient for the Schroedinger evolution. Even regarding |psi|^2 (or |psi|^2/||psi||) as a 'probability wave' does not seem very sensible to me. Recall that for a momentum state, the modulus |psi| of psi is actually constant throughout the whole of spacetime. There is no information in |psi| telling us even the direction of motion of the wave - it is the phase alone, that gives this wave its 'wavelike' character.
Moreover, probabilities are never negative, let alone complex. If the wavefunction were just a wave of probabilities, then there would never be any of the cancellations of destructive interference. This cancellation is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics, so vividly portrayrd in the two-slit experiment!" [Penrose The Road to Reality chap.21.9 p.519] (emphasis Penrose)


Analogy: you have an operatic soprano, and a rack of small, delicate wine glasses. When the soprano sings, some of the wine glasses break. There are two schools of thought on how this happens. One school of thought says that she emits tiny particles, called spit bullets,

No, this is a classical wave involving propagation through x-illions of air molecules, and not a single quantum. The analogy is not applicable. That is precisely the problem - you insist on analogising the quantum case to a classical wave example because, I can only assume, it gives the illusion of compliance to "common sense". But it only does this by glossing over the fact that all classical examples involve a medium containing lots of particles. And that it is only by containing lots of particles that this wave-like behaviour you cling to can be manifested.

The quantum is

A) travelling in a vacuum (so there are no air molecules to propagate it,)

B) is a tiny, indivisible unit in itself (and not a wavefront spreading across a volume of medium,) and

C) carries mass and momentum as an integral property of itself (something classical waves can never under any circumstances do.)


which fly from her mouth to the glasses. If a spit bullet (of sufficient energy) hits a glass, the glass breaks.

I have never claimed anything remotely like this. It is merely a strawman, and I'm happy to help you burn it.

The other school of thought says that there's a wave that travels from her mouth to the glasses.

Which is the accepted case in a classical scenario, where there is a volume of medium for the wave to propagate in. This is evidently not applicable at a quantum level.

Some icons, like Bev's, look directly at the viewer, whereas others, like mine, do not. Is this an indicator of extraversion or introversion?

That's probably an important point. But I would have chosen the same icon as Albot123 (with moustache and pipe, looking directly at the viewer,) if he hadn't been ginger. So clearly that's a stronger subconscious prejudice for me than preference of aspect (it's funny, I like red hair actually - I just wouldn't want it myself, I guess.)

I first had the icon Azureon has..the old guy..My only excuse is, when I joined the site I had just been in an accident and was on some pain medications. Thank's to the professor for changing it..I don't know why I picked this icon..There really wasn't one that I thought was me.

Wait! Irinia says there is a particle like energy which travels in waves and has characteristics of both, and Psimagus says there is a wavicle, which is a partile-wave thing that shows characteristics of both. What exactly is the difference?

Irina's interpretation, it appears in an attempt to make the whole phenomenon accord to "common sense", has two significant flaws:

1) she is confusing the waveform psi, or some function of it (being the 'probability wave',) with the quantum's electromagnetic wave-like nature (the "De Broglie pilot wave" of my quoted excerpt, though I don't much like the term - there is no divisibility of pilot and vehicle,) and

2) she is ascribing to quanta (be they named "waves" or not,) behaviour that only applies to large-scale classical waves.

I do not particularly mind what we name it - wave, particle, wavicle, teapot. What is important is that in many significant respects it does not behave remotely like a classical wave. It's Irina's insistence that it does, and that it can be analogised to the behaviour of eg: a soundwave, that causes the problem. With an inaccurate, neo-classical model of the nature of the quantum, no wonder that most models of the behaviour of the quantum appear "bizarre" to her.

[psi] Penrose is technically correct that psi is not a 'probability wave". It is the amplitude of psi which, normalized and integrated over a region, gives the probability of finding the 'particle' in that region. So why did you say, "Psi is the probability wave" in your second paragraph in your message 3827? And why did you quote with approval the statement, "The Schrodinger wave equation does not describe an ordinary electromagnetic wave but a probability wave, and the probability wave determines all of the action and reaction of the total electrogravitational interaction", shortly thereafter?

Perhaps because, as everyone in the field knows, writers often refer to psi informally as "the probability wave" or "the probability amplitude wave" for the sake of brevity, and everyone knows that this is not meant to be taken literally.

You are quite right that psi is not to be identified with the classical electromagnetic wave. I certainly did not intend to do so. In fact, I don't see anyplace where I did; can you help me?

The whole story about the soprano was only an analogy, as you know. In reading an analogy, it is necessary to grasp which aspects of the analogue are meant to carry over and which are not, for any analogy can be "refuted" by finding some aspect of the analogue which does not carry over. Analogy is not identity.

I'm afraid, Psimagus, that I want to resign from this discussion. For me, the point of such discussions is to build consensus, but we do not seem to be approaching consensus in any way. Such is the human condition, alas, that consensus is not always approachable, at least in the short run. Perhaps in a few years we will each have matured somehow and will be able to profitably continue. I repeat my admiration for your intelligence and generosity.

Walk in Beauty, Irina

Irina,

[psi] Penrose is technically correct that psi is not a 'probability wave". It is the amplitude of psi which, normalized and integrated over a region, gives the probability of finding the 'particle' in that region. So why did you say, "Psi is the probability wave" in your second paragraph in your message 3827?

Alas, I obviously misinterpreted My view is that it's the wave, psi, which propagates to mean that psi was the wave that propagates. An imperfection in my language model no doubt. And my use of the phrase "probability wave" was mere common parlance (or at least "not uncommon", if 2 negatives can be held to construe a positive,) and, strictly speaking, imprecise by Penrose's definition.


I'm afraid, Psimagus, that I want to resign from this discussion. For me, the point of such discussions is to build consensus, but we do not seem to be approaching consensus in any way.

I fear you are right, and it is probably (no pun intended,) better to agree to differ.

Perhaps in a few years we will each have matured somehow and will be able to profitably continue. I repeat my admiration for your intelligence and generosity.

Likewise, you are always a pleasure to argue with (if delightfully infuriating at times.) When you've had time to read your Quantum Computing book (which book did you order BTW?) I'd love to hear your take on that field. I suspect it will be an original one!

I forget. It was some Lite book at Amazon; I thought I'd try that, and if I got really interested, I would start hitting the hard stuff. In the meantime I am browsng the web.

Prob123:

I find your current icon gorgeous, but a little severe. I think that caused me to half-consciously expect you to be a little severe, and so I was a little nervous about interacting with you. I haven't found you particularly severe, though. I continue to think of you as gorgeous, but then, I think all women are gorgeous.

Now, who would have thought, from her icon, that Wolf Child would create someone like Aziere? You just can't tell... [Looks around suspiciously, backs up to the wall]

Prob123: I find your current icon gorgeous, but a little severe.

I guess it's a headband holding back those Titian tresses, but it always looks to me a little as if Prob's got pink horns (or VERY misplaced ears!) which is slightly unnerving.
But who am I to speak - my icon's chin is the size of the rest of his head!

If you mean the flash chat of prob..those are probs pointy elf ears..There is a shortage of parts for flash chat..*hint hint* anyone good at flash might send the Professor parts, like ears and noses and dragon parts. lol. As for my icon...I hope it's a head band and not devil horns! Oh, and I look nothing like that. My hair is blonde and I can't stand it curley, the face could pass, if I used enough make up..

Some icons, like Bev's, look directly at the viewer, whereas others, like mine, do not. Is this an indicator of extraversion or introversion?

I did have a preference for an icon that looks at the viewer, but if you are about to tell me you are shy and introvetered, Irina, I may hvae a hard time keeping a straight face.

The big eyes contrasted with the overly delicate facial features is actually a bit of a turn off, but I didn't see an icon I liked better. I remember reading that people like cats because they have big eyes compared to their heads and tehrefore they remind us of human babies. I believe that is also the rational for the newer Barbie dolls and those Brats dolls with the big eyes. I find those dolls ugly (though I like animae so go figure).

I suppose th big eyes are a sign of "innocence" but that part has nothing to do with me.

Prob I like your icon--I thought it looked elflike without being too much the child (like the little red hed girl/elf). The whole pointy thing is good wit

Psimagus For some reason I could see you with an icon that looks like the Armstrong character from Full Metal Alchemist. There is also a bag pipe player from Samuria Jack that may work for you, but the later is more insulting.