Two massive objects traveling in time

[geordief]

Say two protons.

 

Some where in  a low/zero gravity field  they are  initially at rest wrt each other and I want to track their paths in space/spacetime.

 

So ,according to quantum theory  their locations extend through space  with varying degrees of probabilities 

What happens when and where these 2  probabilty waves (are they waves or fields?) meet?

 

Do they  combine ? Do they interfere?

 

Would any interference between the two bodies (the two protons) probability waves  (or fields?)  cause the paths of the two protons to converge rather than to be parallel?(ie the same way as with a gravitational attraction) 

 

Something like refraction with light( which I don't  understand to well I must admit)

 

Is the initial (and subsequent)spacetime distance btw the 2 protons a function of the  strength of the probability waves between them,perhaps?

 

 

[joigus]

6 minutes ago, geordief said:

Say two protons.

 

Some where in  a low/zero gravity field  they are  initially at rest wrt each other and I want to track their paths in space/spacetime.

 

So ,according to quantum theory  their locations extend through space  with varying degrees of probabilities 

What happens when and where these 2  probabilty waves (are they waves or fields?) meet?

You said two protons, so they would repel each other and wouldn't likely ever meet. There are several factors that tell you so:

1) Electrostatic repulsion

2) Pauli's exclusion principle

3) No p-p bound state in QCD

3) already answers this,

10 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do they  combine ?

And as to,

10 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do they interfere?

No. Interference in quantum mechanics only refers to different alternatives relative to one system. Example: The double slit experiment.

Different components of one wave function interfere at a point. It's never about two distinct electrons, or two distinct protons, etc, interfering.

Having said all that, if you chose to throw the protons at each other --instead of them being initially at rest-- they will scatter off each other, as happens in the LHC.

14 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is the initial (and subsequent)spacetime distance btw the 2 protons a function of the  strength of the probability waves between them,perhaps?

 

The expectation of distance btw 2 protons is indeed a function of their mutual probability waves. They will be more likely to get farther apart as time passes.

Did that help?

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

You said two protons, so they would repel each other and wouldn't likely ever meet. There are several factors that tell you so:

Isn't that what LHRC does ?

[joigus]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Isn't that what LHRC does ?

Legal and Human Rights Centre?  

[geordief]

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

You said two protons, so they would repel each other and wouldn't likely ever meet. There are several factors that tell you so:

1) Electrostatic repulsion

2) Pauli's exclusion principle

3) No p-p bound state in QCD

3) already answers this,

And as to,

No. Interference in quantum mechanics only refers to different alternatives relative to one system. Example: The double slit experiment.

Different components of one wave function interfere at a point. It's never about two distinct electrons, or two distinct protons, etc, interfering.

Having said all that, if you chose to throw the protons at each other --instead of them being initially at rest-- they will scatter off each other, as happens in the LHC.

The expectation of distance btw 2 protons is indeed a function of their mutual probability waves. They will be more likely to get farther apart as time passes.

Did that help?

Damn it!(apologies) Ishould have used an object like a neutron.I forgot completely about  the em attraction of protons 

 

So how about my scenario with 2 neutrally charged particles?

Do their probability  waves combine somehow so that the space between the 2 objects is altered  over time.

[joigus]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

Having said all that, if you chose to throw the protons at each other --instead of them being initially at rest-- they will scatter off each other, as happens in the LHC.

LHC? Large hadron collider? 🤔

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

LHC? Large hadron collider? 🤔

√

You will also find protons colliding here

Quote

Proton beam therapy

Proton beam therapy is a type of radiotherapy that uses a beam of high energy protons, which are small parts of atoms, rather than high energy x-rays (called “photons”) to treat specific types of cancer.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/highly-spec-services/pbt/

Edited February 8, 2023 by studiot

[joigus]

1 minute ago, geordief said:

Damn it!(apologies) Ishould have used an object like a neutron.I forgot completely about  the em attraction of protons 

 

So how about my scenario with 2 neutrally charged particles?

Do their probability  waves combine somehow so that the space between the 2 objects is altered  over time.

They could form a very ephemeral state called a di-neutron and then decay to two neutrons.

You could say that Higgs multiplets --which are neutral-- do combine to alter space, but with no changes over time. They fill up all of space with the result of giving every massive particle a mass.

Neutrinos, OTOH, would do nothing much...

You see, it depends on what neutral particles, and the couplings --interactions-- they have with each other and other particles.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

√

You will also find protons colliding here

https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/highly-spec-services/pbt/

That's a very nice way to hit someone with protons...

[Genady]

43 minutes ago, geordief said:

according to quantum theory  their locations extend through space  with varying degrees of probabilities

Do you have a reference to this statement?

[joigus]

32 minutes ago, joigus said:

Different components of one wave function interfere at a point. It's never about two distinct electrons, or two distinct protons, etc, interfering.

One exception to this is perhaps photons. But photons require a very special quantum treatment. Number of photons is not a conserved quantity, for example. They can interfere with each other[?] through a very big common 'wave function' if you want to call it that. But properly speaking, there is no wave function of a photon in the sense of something that gives you the probability for localisation of a photon. I'm overstretching the limits of language here.

There are even states with no definite number of photons --coherent states.

[geordief]

28 minutes ago, Genady said:

Do you have a reference to this statement?

No (but I can look for one if you want)

 

I thought it was commonly  accepted  ,since I have heard it so often.

 

You think it is wrong?Have I misinterpreted all the times I have heard about things being in two places at once  the super position of waveforms  etc?

(Certainly  not trying to be sarcastic  btw-my default  position is being wrong)

 

 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

You think it is wrong?Have I misinterpreted all the times I have heard about things being in two places at once  the super position of waveforms  etc?

Yes, I think so.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, geordief said:

So ,according to quantum theory  their locations extend through space  with varying degrees of probabilities 

I would say this is more or less a correct statement. Where do you think it's wrong, @Genady? Have I missed something?

[Genady]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

4 hours ago, geordief said:

So ,according to quantum theory  their locations extend through space  with varying degrees of probabilities 

I would say this is more or less a correct statement. Where do you think it's wrong, @Genady? Have I missed something?

I think that you, knowing what it should mean, interpret it as a more or less correct statement.

I think that in QM a particle generally does not have a definite position, and this is not the same as locations extend through space. (Similarly, not to have a definite color is not the same as being rainbow-like.)

OTOH, if being extended means having a wave function in position space, then this wave function is determined, and it does not have varying degrees of probabilities.*

I know that you know all this - I try to explain why I see this statement... in fact, not even wrong.

 

 

*unless it's a mixed state, but OP didn't mean this, I'm sure

Edited February 8, 2023 by Genady
added * clarification

[joigus]

21 minutes ago, Genady said:

I think that you, knowing what it should mean, interpret it as a more or less correct statement.

I think that in QM a particle generally does not have a definite position, and this is not the same as locations extend through space. (Similarly, not to have a definite color is not the same as being rainbow-like.)

OTOH, if being extended means having a wave function in coordinate space, then this wave function is determined, and it does not have varying degrees of probabilities.

I know that you know all this - I try to explain why I see this statement... in fact, not even wrong.

Fair enough. Thank you.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Isn't that what LHRC does ?

Proton colliders don’t have the protons start at rest WRT each other

59 minutes ago, Genady said:

I think that in QM a particle generally does not have a definite position, and this is not the same as locations extend through space. (Similarly, not to have a definite color is not the same as being rainbow-like.)

I suspect we are swimming upstream against pop-sci descriptions of QM being used. Once the rigor has been lost, it’s hard to regain it.

4 hours ago, geordief said:

What happens when and where these 2  probabilty waves (are they waves or fields?) meet?

The probability waves (wave functions) already extend to infinity, so “when they meet” doesn’t make sense.

Particles meeting sounds more like the deBroglie waves (the wave nature of quantum particles) which is not identical to the wave function of the Schrödinger equation.

A lot of pop-sci discussion never makes this distinction clear.