A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduction (Revised)

[SEKI]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

You haven't presented a way to test the idea of a cohesive force. You are claiming it without evidence. It's too vague. I can't point out what's wrong if there's nothing to point at.

You give an example of a particle with a specific momentum, and point out that "According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and specific energy-momentum are not compatible." which is true. So if the spatial wave function is not of infinite size, as QM says it is, you are discarding Schrödinger's wave mechanics. And not replacing it. 

You own the burden of proof here. Demonstrate that you are right. Come up with evidence and/or testable predictions. 

Introduction of cohesive force is my logical consequence.
Impact to Schrödinger's system is considered to be negligible.
The problem is that to Feynman diagrammatic calculation method, renormalization and the like.

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, SEKI said:

Introduction of cohesive force is my logical consequence.
Impact to Schrödinger's system is considered to be negligible.
The problem is that to Feynman diagrammatic calculation method, renormalization and the like.

But it's not negligible. Schrödinger predicts an infinite-extent spatial wave function for a single-valued momentum, and you say this isn't true for your idea, but give no information about what the wave function would look like.

Plus you haven't made any connection to Feynman diagrams, AFAICT. (Which work exceedingly well, BTW)

[SEKI]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

But it's not negligible. Schrödinger predicts an infinite-extent spatial wave function for a single-valued momentum, and you say this isn't true for your idea, but give no information about what the wave function would look like.

Plus you haven't made any connection to Feynman diagrams, AFAICT. (Which work exceedingly well, BTW)

I meant it is negligible from an experimental perspective.

Feynman's calculation method adopts ~exp(ikx) for each free-quantum wavefunction.
I have no clue about how to reform Feynman's calculation method.
If you come up with one, I admit you are a genius.

[joigus]

Before I get more heavily involved in this thread... Could you please clarify these points?: If you want to make a wavepacket reduction possible, you must make the Schrödinger equation either non-linear or non-unitary.

Which one is it?

It's been tried before in a linear and unitary way: Coleman-Hepp. Criticised by John Bell, very eloquently I think.

Weinberg also tried to generalise quantum mechanics to a non-linear dynamical theory. Without much success.

Edited January 24, 2022 by joigus
Addition

[SEKI]

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

Before I get more heavily involved in this thread... Could you please clarify these points?: If you want to make a wavepacket reduction possible, you must make the Schrödinger equation either non-linear or non-unitary.

Which one is it?

It's been tried before in a linear and unitary way: Coleman-Hepp. Criticised by John Bell, very eloquently I think.

Weinberg also tried to generalise quantum mechanics to a non-linear dynamical theory. Without much success.

I wrote many times that cohesive force is like surface tension.

How can equation with cohesive force be linear/unitary?

 

[joigus]

6 hours ago, SEKI said:

I wrote many times that cohesive force is like surface tension.

How can equation with cohesive force be linear/unitary?

 

Quantum mechanics has nothing in the way of a cohesive force. Schrödinger's equation is more like a heat equation, but with an imaginary "heat capacity." And it's generally dispersive.

[studiot]

21 hours ago, SEKI said:

I wrote many times that cohesive force is like surface tension.

How can equation with cohesive force be linear/unitary?

 

 

Is the inverse square law of gravity linear ?

And is gravity a cohesive force ?

I have started a thread about models, since you seem to be so reluctant to discuss cohesive models.

Model A is a reasonable qualitative model to explain surface tension and more besides.

 

[swansont]

It's already been pointed out that QM (Schrödinger's equation) deals with energy and not forces - we deal with interactions.

One of the issues here is that it's not clear whether the wave packet being referenced is a wave function, or the deBroglie wave. Some statements imply one, and some imply the other. They are not the same thing.

How can a wave function feel a force? How does a deBroglie wave have an internal force? One of these, at least, must be addressed.

[SEKI]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

It's already been pointed out that QM (Schrödinger's equation) deals with energy and not forces - we deal with interactions.

One of the issues here is that it's not clear whether the wave packet being referenced is a wave function, or the deBroglie wave. Some statements imply one, and some imply the other. They are not the same thing.

How can a wave function feel a force? How does a deBroglie wave have an internal force? One of these, at least, must be addressed.

Please point out a defect in the arguments of (3).

[swansont]

8 hours ago, SEKI said:

Please point out a defect in the arguments of (3).

Why, did you not read my previous post where I did so?

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, SEKI said:

Please point out a defect in the arguments of (3).

Several people have done so. You claim current theory says a photon spreads and out and "disappears". But current theory does not say it disappears.   

So your "cohesive force" seems to address a non-existent problem. But in case I have misunderstood, I've asked you about this, and you have failed to respond. The dispersion of wave packets is not a problem, so far as I am aware, but in any case you have denied that dispersion of wave packets is what you have in mind.

So if it is not that, I ask again: what problem in physics are you addressing with this idea? If it addresses no problem, it can be dismissed as a scientific hypothesis, by Ockham's Razor.      

Edited January 26, 2022 by exchemist

[joigus]

The only thing that looks "cohesive" to me on this thread are the cohesive attempts by members of the forums to have you explain --with a default-minimum maths, if possible-- how you can see a force in Schrödinger's equation; and what's more, how you can see any interactions that show up as "cohesive."

The DeBroglie-Bohm model does not display cohesiveness either, BTW. The wave acts on the particle by means of the quantum potential in an equation that's formally a Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of dynamics; while the particle does not act on the wave. The wave goes its own way.

That's the main reason why Einstein didn't like the model, BTW.

Edited January 26, 2022 by joigus
minor correction

[SergUpstart]

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

how you can see a force in Schrödinger's equation

When we move from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, our ideas about the importance of certain concepts change in many ways. (We have already considered some of these concepts before.) In particular, the concept of force is gradually disappearing, and the concepts of energy and momentum are becoming of paramount importance. Instead of the motion of particles, as you remember, we are now talking about the amplitudes of probabilities that change in space and time. These amplitudes include wavelengths associated with pulses and frequencies associated with energies. Impulses and energies determine the phases of wave functions and for this reason they are important for quantum mechanics. Instead of force, we are now talking about how the interaction changes the wavelength. The idea of power is already becoming secondary, if at all it is still worth talking about. Even when, for example, they mention nuclear forces, in fact, as a rule, they still work with the interaction energies of two nucleons, and not with the force of their interaction. It doesn't occur to anyone to differentiate the energy to see what the force is. In this section we want to tell you how vector and scalar potentials arise in quantum mechanics. It turns out that precisely because momentum and energy play the main role in quantum mechanics, the most direct way to introduce electromagnetic effects into the quantum description is to do it using A and φ.

Feynman Lectures on Physics volume 6 chapter 15, the quote is given in the reverse translation

[studiot]

39 minutes ago, exchemist said:

So if it is not that, I ask again:

+1 for tenacity

31 minutes ago, joigus said:

The only thing that looks "cohesive" to me on this thread are the cohesive attempts by members of the forums to have you explain

+1 for the clever use of English (and the truth of your comments)

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, SEKI said:

Please point out a defect in the arguments of (3).

!

Moderator Note

You need to go back and read where this has been done. If you don't understand it, ask a question. If you continue to ignore replies that are doing exactly as you ask here, I'm going to have to close this thread. 

 

[SEKI]

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to go back and read where this has been done. If you don't understand it, ask a question. If you continue to ignore replies that are doing exactly as you ask here, I'm going to have to close this thread. 

 

I have already admitted that introduction of cohesive force is not compatible with the framework of traditional quantum theories.
This fact does not mean introduction of cohesive force is false.
Rather, it means that traditional quantum theories are only approximately true.
Can't he understand this simple logic?

I am tired of discussing with persons without intellectual honesty.
Considering their difficult conditions, however, I cannot but feel sympathy.

So, I would like to say goodbye.

Thanks a lot.
I wish all of you good luck.

 

[exchemist]

25 minutes ago, SEKI said:

I have already admitted that introduction of cohesive force is not compatible with the framework of traditional quantum theories.
This fact does not mean introduction of cohesive force is false.
Rather, it means that traditional quantum theories are only approximately true.
Can't he understand this simple logic?

I am tired of discussing with persons without intellectual honesty.
Considering their difficult conditions, however, I cannot but feel sympathy.

So, I would like to say goodbye.

Thanks a lot.
I wish all of you good luck.

 

"Without intellectual honesty", my arse. Several of us have tried really hard to understand what you are trying to do. You, on the other hand, have been almost entirely unhelpful in your responses.  

[Ghideon]

30 minutes ago, SEKI said:

So, I would like to say goodbye.

Ok. My questions regarding your anti-quantum will not get any response then. Best of luck.

 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, SEKI said:

I wish all of you good luck.

!

Moderator Note

You as well. Thread closed.