the cause of the collapse of the wave function

[gib65]

I had an insight and I want to see if more knowledgeable scientists think there is something to this. It concerned the "collapse of the wave function" of quantum mechanics and what exactly causes it.

 

I'm going with an assumption I made in a previous thread - namely, that a photon travels as a wave for the same reason an electron travels as a wave (a-la-double-slit-experiment). I'm calling this a "probability wave" for obvious reasons.

 

To get to the point:

 

1) photons are emitted and absorbed by electrons. An electron in a high energy state will drop to a low energy state while emitting a photon. It will rise to a high energy state when absorbing a photon.

 

2) An electron will bind itself to an atom if there is an empty orbital available to it. An electron will be "torn away" from an atom with enough energy.

 

3) A single electron which is not bound to an atom will travel in a state of superposition whereby it will exhibit wave properties much like that of photons.

 

4) The "probability wave" that describes the superposition state of an electron does not "collapse" simply by "making contact" or "colliding" with other particles or atoms. This is evinced by the double slit experiment whereby the electron doesn't "hit" the wall with the slits in it in any one definite spot, nor does it "hit" the electron-sensitive plate in any one definite spot.

 

Conclusion:

 

It is possible that the binding of an electron to an atom is exactly the same phenomenon as a photon being absorbed by an electron. Likewise for an electron being "ripped" from an atom and a photon being emitted from an electron. That is, the term "absorption" and "binding" are two words for the same thing. Same with "emitting" and "ripping away". In our models, we use the mental imagery of electrons "orbiting" the nucleus of an atom, and photons being "absorbed" by an electron like a spunge, but really we could think of photons "orbiting" electrons or electrons being "absorbed" by the nuclei of atoms.

 

Furthermore, whatever this "absorption/bind" phenomenon is, it is responsible for the "collapse of the wave function" as they say. That is, an electron or a photon is in a state of superposition until it is "absorbed by/bound to" an atom's nucleus or an electron. At that point, it is definitely there wherever the atom or electron might be. This "absorption/binding" phenomenon is obvious more than just an electron or photon making contact with something (as point #4 above points out). It is a very specific phenomenon. If we could figure out exactly what it is, this might be a step in the right direction towards figuring out what brings about the "collapse of the wave function".

[swansont]

3) A single electron which is not bound to an atom will travel in a state of superposition whereby it will exhibit wave properties much like that of photons.

 

Superposition of what states?

 

4) The "probability wave" that describes the superposition state of an electron does not "collapse" simply by "making contact" or "colliding" with other particles or atoms. This is evinced by the double slit experiment whereby the electron doesn't "hit" the wall with the slits in it in any one definite spot, nor does it "hit" the electron-sensitive plate in any one definite spot.

 

The electron striking the plate is localized.

[gib65]

Superposition of what states?

 

Of position. Yes, there are other states (spin, for example) which may or may not collapse due to binding/absorption (AFAIK).

 

The electron striking the plate is localized.

 

Only over the whole area of the interference pattern, but not at a single point.

[Klaynos]

absorption can be spin dependent, depending on the material.

 

A single electron fired through a double slit (or single photon) will one be detected at one point on the screen therefore it is localised.

[gib65]

absorption can be spin dependent, depending on the material.

 

A single electron fired through a double slit (or single photon) will one be detected at one point on the screen therefore it is localised.

 

Really? I misunderstood the results of the experiment then. I still see how it is possible to get an interference pattern though.

[gib65]

absorption can be spin dependent, depending on the material.

 

A single electron fired through a double slit (or single photon) will one be detected at one point on the screen therefore it is localised.

 

I was thinking about this some more and came to some very strange conclusions.

 

So the electron is localized when it hits the plate. Is it also localized when it hits the wall with the slits? Obviously, it doesn't hit the wall every time - at least a few times, it has to go through the slits. But when it does this, what do we say about the collapse of the wave function? Did it "partially" collapse?

I mean, before it reaches the slits, I'm assuming the probability of measuring its location anywhere in front of the wall is evenly distributed over the whole area (well, tapering off as you approach the edges of the wall). Once it goes through the slits however, this distribution cannot be the same. It definitely did not hit the wall and there is an equal probability of the electron being in either of the two slits. Therefore, the electron going through the slits represents a change in the probability distribution, but not a change that is decisive in localizing the electron to one point. Does this constitute "half" a collapse, so to speak?

[swansont]

When it goes through the slits, it interferes with itself. So the wave function is modified, but I don't think that "partially collapsed" is an apt description of that.

 

It would be incorrect to put it as having gone through one or the other — it goes through both.

[Norman Albers]

Now we are putting light through near-field filters or something, holes at micron spacing or such, and there is a different information structure. Anyone to help flesh this out? It gets us down smaller than a wavelength in optical etching. We are moving closer the wall of detection to the slit plane.

[bunburryist]

This business about collapsing wave fuctions arises from a mistaken understanding of what a wave fuction is. A wave fuction isn't something that exists in a universe and propagates through space, only to "collapse" at some time and place. Rather, it is a mathematical construct we use to interpret experimental results. No one ever "discovered" a wave fuction to actually exist.

[Norman Albers]

Between you and Klaynos I'm learning important things. Sending anything through slits is changing the wave function. Absorption is localizing by an atomic receiver. Is this useful?