You don't see where God and evolution enter into the realm of fundamental beliefs that conflict with scientific evidence? Curious... — Kenosha Kid

What scientific evidence you are talking about? The Copenhagen view is a belief all the same. And why should you take scientific evidence seriously in the first place? If you do science yes. And there is no scientific evidence in the case of QM.

What scientific evidence you are talking about? — Cartuna

Check the title of this thread ;)

I'm talking about the interpretation.

I'm talking about the interpretation. — Cartuna

You just asked about evidence. Try and at least follow your _own_ end of the discussion.

You just asked about evidence. Try and at least follow your _own_ end of the discussion. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It feels you are throwing in a bucket of red or blue herrings. Do you mean I have to stop questioning the orthodoxy? Where in history have we seen that before, when science questioned the orthodoxy of the church? I have the inkling feeling you are the one defending God and rejecting evolution.There is no scientific evidence for the orthodoxy. I defend a hidden variables view.

That's excatly what I do. By questioning the other ends. What does a a unitary evolution of the wavefunction in the MWI entail for me as an observer? I know there is conservation of energy or mass, but what does it mean in that context? That I have a chance of ending up in following parallel worlds? Which makes it still hard to believe though that mass is conserved, but you can distribute it nicely. The MWI can ensure energy conservation by assigning the right weights. Still, the concept is ridiculous. The split might be unitary, but it makes me feel totally non-unitary, kind of a split personality, the ultimate schizoid.

Do you mean I have to stop questioning the orthodoxy? — Cartuna

No, you're not scientifically unorthodox, you're ascientific: your beliefs concerning nature are not impinged by scientific facts.

There is no scientific evidence for the orthodoxy. I defend a hidden variables view. — Cartuna

I've already given an example: the electric moment of ground state hydrogen.

what does it mean in that context? That I have a chance of ending up in following parallel worlds? Which makes it still hard to believe though that mass is conserved, but you can distribute it nicely. — Cartuna

I'm not sure you quite grasp MWI, or superposed states generally. Even if no branching occurs, and a particle's superposition of being here or there remains coherent, it still has a mass. You don't need branching or collapse to encounter issues like superposition.

I've already given an example: the electric moment of ground state hydrogen. — Kenosha Kid

In Bohmian mechanics, in the ground state of hydrogen, the electron is at rest relative to the proton. However, the electric dipole is not measurable, since any approach of an electric charge immediately sets the electron in motion. The guiding equation always results in no difference to quantum mechanics.

No, you're not scientifically unorthodox, you're ascientific: your beliefs concerning nature are not impinged by scientific facts. — Kenosha Kid

Then the orthodox view is non-scientific just the same. There is just no scientific evidence the orthodox view is the correct one.
All physical examples thus far contain no evidence whatsoever regarding the nature of the wavefunction, or more generally, quantum fields, a cross section of which delivers the wavefunction. If you have scientific evidence that the wavefunction is a probability measure without further explanation, it would be in the headlines. All explanations of the wavefunction and its behaviors, be it in the context of decoherence (offering only an apparent solution to the measurement problem), the MWI, or hidden variables, have no experimental backup yet. Clinging to one of them is just a matter of belief so far.

I've already given an example: the electric moment of ground state hydrogen. — Kenosha Kid

The ground state of hydrogen has no electric moment (maybe if you could shake the proton, which would imply that the state is not a groundstate anymore though, like shaking the electron), but even if it had this would not constitute evidence.

Like I said, any evidence would be hot as hell. Which brings to my mind a Gedanken Experiment (involving arrival times) to discern if pure chance governs particles or something deeper.
To bring the experiment outside the realm of thought is very difficult though, and it's a pity I can't find it online. I saw it mentioned on a forum for physics. It is already shown that hidden variables are non-local, which is no surprise as they are introduced to explain non-local features like collapse.

I'm not sure you quite grasp MWI, or superposed states generally. Even if no branching occurs, and a particle's superposition of being here or there remains coherent, it still has a mass. You don't need branching or collapse to encounter issues like superposition. — Kenosha Kid

The MWI or superpositions generally are not that difficult to grasp. Of course a particle still has a mass when being in an isolated coherent state of superposition, but solving the measurement problem by decoherence is simply inconsistent with the Copenhagen interpretation, because that asserts an objective macrostate in which the isolated coherent state is embedded, giving rise to decoherence upon interaction, which makes the solution circular.
The embedding of an isolated coherent system in a universal wavefunction makes collapse superfluous altogether, but introduces parallel universes to achieve this. Giving rise to understandable questions like the question how energy can be conserved when the wavefunction unitarily breaks up in two disconnected wavefunctions after a measurement by an observer Energy or mass are simply conserved, just like mass and energy are conserved in any superposition. A superposition of two electron states doesn't mean there are suddenly two electron masses involved.

The observer and the coherent state he measures are just considered part of an all-encompassing state in which just one observer is distributed in disconnected states over the total state after a measurement, while before the measurement the coherent superposition is a still connected small part of the whole. Hawking, RIP, even used this universal wavefunction to account for the initial condìtions of the big bang, which obviously had to be such to give rise to the universe as we see it (I'm talking about different initial configurations and initial parameters like interaction strengths or particle masses). And there are quite a lot initial conditions, which all can be accommodated by a universal wavefunction and thus retroactively and trivially collapse the wavefunction to the state as we perceive today, while the MWI denies the collapse but conjectures a state in which all possible sub-states live happily side by side. You can even consider this in a timeless fashion, like I already wrote, in a block universal mode, which leaves open the question though of how the evolution in time "happens". If there are just branches of a universal wavefunction, then how one progresses from a coherent still superimposed state to non-coherent, disconnected states after a measurement? The same could be asked in a block universe where all worldlines are part of a static universe. How can one move in such a timeless universe?
The point of the initial fine-tuning doesn't need a universal wavefunction. If we keep that wavefunction within the domain of of the physics in our part of the universe, it suffices to conjecture that life is bound to emerge.

There is no reason to introduce a universal wavefunction, or parallel worlds to save unitary development, or a seemingly resolution of the measurement problem by decoherence if you don't accept the orthodoxy. Wigner's friend watching Schrödinger's cat, while the universe retroactively collapses, will become part of an evil fairytale.

In Bohmian mechanics, in the ground state of hydrogen, the electron is at rest relative to the proton. — SolarWind

That's untrue even in Bohmian mechanics. The electron is still moving, the relevant point is there should be a time-dependent electric dipole from the two separated charges.

However, the electric dipole is not measurable, since any approach of an electric charge immediately sets the electron in motion. — SolarWind

You don't need to displace anything. Emitted radiation, for instance, tells you what the dipole moment is. Anyway, Bohm himself conceded that the charge distribution would have to belong to the pilot wave, not the particle, which is tantamount to giving up on the idea of point particles (charge being the most important particle property of electrons).

That's untrue even in Bohmian mechanics. The electron is still moving, the relevant point is there should be a time-dependent electric dipole from the two separated charges. — Kenosha Kid

And there you make a false assumption. I already mentioned this. If an electron hops erratically like a Brownian particle, you would expect an EM field to come out of the wavefunction. But there ia no continuous flow of current. Just an electron being here and then there, smoothening out the virtual photon condensate around it. That's why there is no overall dipole moment.

An electron in the s-state is not a smeared out electron, as the probabilistic interpretation suggests.

There is just no scientific evidence the orthodox view is the correct one. — Cartuna

Obviously there is, since consensus in science is built around evidence. Where there is no evidence, there is no orthodoxy. The correct interpretation of QM is still up for grabs, but that doesn't mean that any theory is as good as any other. One example is that God selects outcomes of quantum events.

The ground state of hydrogen has no electric moment (maybe if you could shake the proton, which would imply that the state is not a groundstate anymore though, like shaking the electron), but even if it had this would not constitute evidence. — Cartuna

That is the evidence, since in hidden variables theories like Bohmian mechanics, it _should_ have a dipole moment: two charges separated by space makes a dipole.

I already mentioned this. If an electron hops erratically like a Brownian particle, you would expect an EM field to come out of the wavefunction. — Cartuna

An EM field exists whether it's static or moving. That's what charge ensures. Where do you get this stuff? Hearing Brownian motion come up makes me think you're just grabbing at physics concepts at random in order to keep speaking for the sake of speaking.

But there ia no continuous flow of current. — Cartuna

Orbital angular momentum? Spin?

Obviously there is, since consensus in science is built around evidence. Where there is no evidence, there is no orthodoxy. The correct interpretation of QM is still up for grabs, but that doesn't mean that any theory is as good as any other. One example is that God selects outcomes of quantum events. — Kenosha Kid

Once again, if there was evidence, you would make it to the headlines. The only evidence so far is the evidence for the non-existence of local hidden variables. And these are exactly the ones not needed for hidden variables. God may even select outcomes by means of hidden variables. Would explain nicely weird coincidences, though more down-to-Earth explanations could do just as well.

That is the evidence, since in hidden variables theories like Bohmian mechanics, it _should_ have a dipole moment: two charges separated by space makes a dipole. — Kenosha Kid

That's why Bohmian mechanics isn't adequate. An adequate formulation doesn't predict an observable dipole moment. A smeared out electron, as suggested by the standard interpretation, implies an expanding negatively charged structure which can't collapse. A negatively charged extended structure only expands (in empty space). A measurement causes collapse though.
This should cause EM radiation, which isn't observed in a double slit experiment with electrons, like there is no electric moment observed for s-orbitals in atoms.

This shows that both in your example (there has to be a time-dependent electric moment), as well as in mine (there should be an EM field), QFT hasn't been taken into consideration, which for bound systems is rather complicated.

An EM field exists whether it's static or moving. That's what charge ensures. Where do you get this stuff? Hearing Brownian motion come up makes me think you're just grabbing at physics concepts at random in order to keep speaking for the sake of speaking. — Kenosha Kid

At random? If you can't see the connection with hidden variables then I can only conclude you don't understand hidden variables. The medium in which the particle flows represents the wavefunction which litterally makes the Brownian move erratically and seemingly randomly. But the motion is determined by the medium. Metaphors, my dear... Don't take it literally. And certainly not randomly, which you only use here to belittle my argument. If you would see the connection it's not random, but if you don't see it than it looks random indeed. I'm not sure what's the tenth red herring about speaking for the sake of speaking is about.

But there ia no continuous flow of current.
— Cartuna

Orbital angular momentum? Spin? — Kenosha Kid

I'm not speaking here about the electron in a hydrogen atom. I'm saying that for a time varying EM field to appear, a continuous flow of charge is needed. An electron in an s-orbital has no angular momentum, and to associate spin with a continuous flow of current flies in the face of all modern conceptions of spin. The spin of an electron isn't related to a continuous flow of current (which only goes to show that the concept of a point particle isn't sufficient). An electron hopping around in the s-orbital will not produce a measurable electric dipole. If the hopping is fast enough. It would be a great test though to see if hidden variables are really there. :smile:

A measurement causes collapse though. — Cartuna

In collapse interpretations only.

This should cause EM radiation, which isn't observed in a double slit experiment with electrons, like there is no electric moment observed for s-orbitals in atoms. — Cartuna

No, it shouldn't cause EM radiation. Collapse simply changes the state amplitudes. You're back to thinking that physical properties themselves are somehow split. When collapse takes you from a*E1 + b*E2, for instance, there's no transition from E2 to E1. That wouldn't be collapse, that would be a process.

The medium in which the particle flows represents the wavefunction which litterally makes the Brownian move erratically and seemingly randomly. — Cartuna

There's no randomness in Bohm, that's the point. There's _chaotic_ behaviour: which trajectory the pilot wave forces the particle is extremely sensitive to small, hidden differences in initial state, but is deterministic.

An electron in an s-orbital has no angular momentum, and to associate spin with a continuous flow of current flies in the face of all modern conceptions of spin. — Cartuna

That's precisely where the magnetic moment of a charged particle comes from.

In collapse interpretations only — Kenosha Kid

That's the one I'm talking about. Bohmian mechanics.

No, it shouldn't cause EM radiation. Collapse simply changes the state amplitudes. You're back to thinking that physical properties themselves are somehow split. When collapse takes you from a*E1 + b*E2, for instance, there's no transition from E2 to E1. That wouldn't be collapse, that would be a process. — Kenosha Kid

If you envision the electron as being smeared out, than a change in this smearing out should cause a change in the associated smeared out electric field. This is not observed. I do indeed think that the electron and wavefunction are split. In this view the collapse is a process.

There's no randomness in Bohm, that's the point. There's _chaotic_ behaviour: which trajectory the pilot wave forces the particle is extremely mesensitive to small, hidden differences in initial state, but is deterministic. — Kenosha Kid

I said there is a seemingly random motion of the BP determined by the medium.

That's precisely where the magnetic moment of a charged particle comes from. — Kenosha Kid

That's exactly where it doesn't come from. At least, not in the point particle view.

That's the one I'm talking about. Bohmian mechanics. — Cartuna

Bohmian mechanics is not a collapse interpretation.

That's exactly where it doesn't come from. — Cartuna

I think the only thing to be learned here is that you parrot stuff you've heard of without any comprehension. I'll revert to my usual mode of just pointing out for the sake of others when you're bullshitting.

No need to get upset! Jesus man! For the sake of others you point out that I am bullshiting? How noble! Even Feynman didn't understand electron spin and you pretend you know? Explain me please.

Not upset, just not averse to calling a spade a spade, and I've learned the hard way when to draw a line. There's an element of newbie poker involved in discussions with strangers... the temptation is to throw good money after bad, to feel pot committed. I've learned not to do that, especially with people peddling made-up physics (my field). Not personal, perfectly clinical. :smile:

Not upset, just not averse to calling a spade a spade, — Kenosha Kid

I'm not either. Your spade is a different one than mine, that's all. I'm not sure what poker has got to do with this discussion though. I played a hidden variables card and you can't use it for your set. That makes you angry. Hidden variable wavefunctions collapse literally. And you still not made it clear how electron spin is caused by electric current. You keep on throwing in red herrings to diverge attention. Not very constructive.

I'm not sure what poker has got to do with this discussion though. — Cartuna

the temptation is to throw good money after bad, to feel pot committed. — Kenosha Kid

The analogy is with continuing to engage with someone long after you've realised they're not bound by normal debate conventions, like knowing or caring wtf they're talking about.

The analogy is with continuing to engage with someone long after you've realised they're not bound by normal debate conventions — Kenosha Kid

In that case I should indeed stop debating. Red herrings are not part of a normal debate, nor terms like bs, wtf, etc.

like knowing or caring wtf they're talking about. — Kenosha Kid

You stated that the electron's magnetic moment is caused by a continuous current. I asked to explain how this happens then. Instead a new red herring. And a wtf, while you are the one who is bs... oops, while you are the one who shows he doesn't know what he is talking about. Don't take it all too seriously. Physics is just a nice game. But I understand that you feel endangered in your position of the hoarder of the herd. I'm just a newbie (not to be trusted), after all... :smile:

np. Although "bullshit" is a recognised technical term here. I think Banno knows the origin.

Although "bullshit" is a recognised technical term here. I think Banno knows the origin. — Kenosha Kid

Haha! Wtf is Banno? Did he lay under a bull's hole?

Anyhow, the only view on the double slit experiment and measurements which doesn't give rise to strange stuff like the MWI, observer dependency of reality, Schrödinger's cat, or Wigner's friend, is assigning a physical reality to the wavefunction. The mathematical form describing a real distribution of hidden variables, the collapse being a literal collapse which can be non-unitary, and instantaneous over space due to their non-local nature. No information can be sent this way and it can even be argued that hidden variables constitute space.

There's a wiki page on observers with respect to quantum mechanics. Humans aren't required. — Benkei

True. Detection only requires the particle to collide with a physical system. All this 'observer determines outcome' is bunkum.

Detection only requires the particle to collide with a physical system. All this 'observer determines outcome' is bunkum. — EnPassant

Interference has also been demonstrated for molecules. Inside the molecule, however, the atoms interact with each other and would collapse the wave function.

Is the wave function collapsed or not?

Is the wave function collapsed or not? — SolarWind

I think the collapse of the wave function is only a manner of speaking. Nothing collapses in real terms. The wave function is only an abstract way of grasping the mystery. Suppose you have 50 possible destinations that you can go to. This is the abstract space that you contemplate. You make a decision on one destination so the other 49 possibilities 'vanish'. But nothing collapses in real terms. Possibilities vanish, that is all.

But nothing collapses in real terms. Possibilities vanish, that is all. — EnPassant

The difference between classical probability and quantum mechanics is interference and this refutes the concept of a pure notion of the wave function. Back to the origin => double slit.

I think the collapse of the wave function is only a manner of speaking. — EnPassant

It's more and less than that. It used to be called "wavefunction reduction", and simply meant that, before measurement, we don't know if the system is in state A, B, C, etc. (or some mixture), but after measurement we know it's A so we "reduce" the description to that. It was purely epistemological: we revise what we know as we know it.

Some, including Bohr (I learned from Cat or Mww or another one of the great contributors here), came to think it was an actual physical process that occurred, likely non-deterministic.

It's probably going to go the way of the ether though, just an idea dead people once believed in out of ignorance.

I remember a "guide wave" version being discussed. Where the particle rides a wave. It seems to account for the distribution and the appearance of being a wave and a particle.

It's probably going to go the way of the ether though, just an idea dead people once believed in out of ignorance. — Kenosha Kid

Indeed. It's a shame that Copenhagen set the metric for evaluating the wave function. All QM courses are based on it. Shutting up and calculate was made the norm. Leaving those longing to relieve their ignorance in the dark. Giving way to strange distractions like the measurement problem, observer induced collapse, the MWI, Schrödinger's cat, and Wignerfriend. If only de Broglie was taken seriously and more would have been supportive. Powerplay...