Why does decoherence not fully solve the measurement problem?

[Frame Dragger]

Okay, that's helpful, and it seems to agree with the way Cesiumfrog described the Jaynes school of thought. I thought all along what I was doing was the "semi-classical approach" but maybe I was wrong. I'm understanding that they use the e-m field as a perturbation, and then retreat to the SQM framework to calculate transition probabilities between eigenstates... the old Bohr "quantum leap". That's exactly halfway to my approach so I guess my ststem would have to be called the "75%-classical approach" because I treat the field as classcal e-m and the atom as a tiny oscillating dipole. So I don't have "transition probabilities" and quantum leaps, I have radiation resistance and continuous power output.

It's still hard for me to believe that no one has staked out this territory already. It seems pretty obvious. There's all kinds of phenomena that are totally natural in this system. I'd like to work though the physics with anyone who's interested but I'm having a problem getting people to take those "little antennas" seriously. People seem to agree that they exist theoretically but then insist that I'm not allowed to apply Maxwell's equations to them. When I do and get seemingly correct results (e.g. my ballpark calculation of the Einstein A coefiicient) it is dismissed as coincidence. Other people just want to psychoanalyze me. But then, you haven't asked me to rehash the old arguments from this thread. So let it be.

(EDIT): I hope this is not a further infraction, but I just wanted to clarify that my post was originally three paragraphs long and the last paragraph was deleted by the moderator.

YOU'RE the guy with the blog about "quantum siphoniong"?! Oh hell, you should have said that to begin with so none us wasted our time. There is nothing even APPROACHING real physics in what you do, and I might add that NO ONE has agreed with your "little antennas".

Usually, whe people put a half-baked theory forth, they at LEAST try to understand the one they're trying to replace. How ridiculous, you're just another crank pushing your theory here, which is completely contrary to the educational mission of the site.

By the by, the original paragraph made it to my email notifications, so I was able to enjoy the full post. You know, I the first time you said it (a while back) I thought you were JOKING about the Nobel... this really is textbook illusory superiority, and Kruger-Dunning. Go back to school conway, and learn what the hell it is that science IS.

You seem to know some math, but your grasp of the sceintific method is breathtakingly poor. You are also quite deceptive:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2638960&postcount=32

Oh look, that's you claiming that the photographic process has been explained by this theory... one you came up with, and are trying to propogate. It's funny, you see, I wouldn't have referred to it as though I were simply one of many who believed this, and formulated it.

 

[conway]

YOU'RE the guy with the blog about "quantum siphoniong"?! Oh hell, you should have said that to begin with so none us wasted our time. There is nothing even APPROACHING real physics in what you do, and I might add that NO ONE has agreed with your "little antennas".

Usually, whe people put a half-baked theory forth, they...

I think I said they recognized the existence of the antennas in the model, they just dispute my claim that we should allow them to radiate according to Maxwell's equations. I hope I'm not taking any of these quotes out of context:

From Spectracat, post 85:

I assure you that I understand it just fine. I never said that the wavefunction was stationary ... I said that the expansion coefficients for the two basis states don't change in the absence of an external perturbation, which is not at all the same thing. Yes, there is a time dependent oscillation of the charge density in this picture. The oscillation will even also have a non-zero dipole component if you choose a single p-orbital for the expansion. However, as I said, in the absence of an external perturbation, such a superposition will persist forever with no change in the expansion coefficients for the eigenstates. This is basic stuff! ... It is a *classical* antenna, and it has no bearing on what an atom "actually does", at least not according to the well-established theory called quantum mechanics...

From collinsmark, post 69:

...my knowledge of quantum electrodynamics (above and beyond non-relativistic quantum mechanics) is presently rather sparse, but from what I can gather, I am not presently aware of electrons radiating energy when being in a superposition of states, even though the expectation value of the wave-function may oscillate.

From Cthuga, post 104:

It is well known that a linear combination of energy eigenstates in QM can lead to an oscillating motion of charge and therefore an oscillating dipole. This is often explained in analogy to antennas in beginners' courses on em-theory or group theory because you can see that transitions are only dipole-allowed if they show a different symmetry.

From yoda jedi, post 63:

RIGHT !
clever insight

called ψ-complete view, unlike ψ-epistemic.
as for ψ-epistemic which quantum states are solely representative of our knowledge.

Okay, that last one may be a little out of context.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I think I said they recognized the existence of the antennas in the model, they just dispute my claim that we should allow them to radiate according to Maxwell's equations. I hope I'm not taking any of these quotes out of context

post 85: "It is a *classical* antenna, and it has no bearing on what an atom "actually does", at least not according to the well-established theory called quantum mechanics...

Oh yeah, he's clearly agreeing with you there. :roll:
Really, I strongly suspect that Collinsmark, who just wanted to help you, Cthuga who just wanted to help you, are going to probably NOT wanting you to allign them with your farkakt guesswork masquerading as a theory.

As for Yoda Jedi, who knows, but since his quote IS out of context, I assume you put it in for bulk fiber?

 

[SpectraCat]

To set the record straight, I for one never agreed that the description of atoms in superposition states as classical antennas has any physical significance beyond understanding the dipole-selection rules (I think this is what Cthuga is saying as well). Furthermore I have stated in several places that I don't believe that the classical Maxwell equations can be used to extract physically sensible results from the oscillating charge densities predicted by the TDSE for an atomic superposition state.

To call something a "classical antenna" implies that it can absorb and emit radiation in a classical (i.e. continuous fashion), whereby the energy coupled into or out of the system is proportional to the squared amplitude of the electric field. It is well-known that this is not a correct description of absorption and emission from atomic states, therefore I would say that the description of atoms as "classical antennas" is physically incorrect.

 

[Count Iblis]

How did |conway> collapse into |[STRIKE]conway[/STRIKE]>

 

[Frame Dragger]

Ahhhh, that sweet line through his name... it's like an icepick has been removed from my damned temple.

@Thread: Requiem in terra pacis. *wave*

EDIT: @Count Iblis: He was perturbed? Orrr... maybe he was siphoned away by the staff...

 

[SpectraCat]

Here is another example of the incorrectness of the antenna model: it doesn't give the correct explanation for superpositions of excited states. There is no physical reason why the ground state has to be used in a superposition ... if the gas is hot enough, then you should be able to observe superpositions of excited eigenstates as well.

Consider a two-state superposition of the 2s and 3p eigenstates. According to your classical antenna model, this should emit and absorb only at the lowest line in the Balmer series (i.e. the Hydrogen-alpha line at 656.3 nm). However, the quantum mechanical model I have described in past posts predicts that the emission will also occur at the Lyman-beta line (3p-->1s transition @ 102.5 nm), and in fact almost all of the emission will occur at that wavelength, since the Einstein coefficients for spontaneous emission are inversely proportional to the *third power* of the wavelength. Thus the Lyman-beta emission, which is absent from the "classical antenna" model for such a superposition, is ~260 times more likely than the Balmer-alpha emission.

 

[George Jones]

How did |conway> collapse into |[STRIKE]conway[/STRIKE]>

As has been suspected for some time, conway was the return of someone twice-banned (now thrice-banned).

 

[SpectraCat]

As has been suspected for some time, conway was the return of someone twice-banned (now thrice-banned).

Oh jeez ... what a waste of time all these threads have been. It explains a lot though .. I wonder what his handle will be the next time he raises his head? Perhaps "itrytoCONyouintothinkingmyWAY"? At least that would be more honest ...

 

[George Jones]

Oh jeez ... what a waste of time all these threads have been.

I hope not a total waste of time; you have fleshed out some arguments that you might want to use in the future, and to which you can give links.

 

[SpectraCat]

I hope not a total waste of time; you have fleshed out some arguments that you might want to use in the future, and to which you can give links.

Yes, you are right. What I really meant is that trying to convince him of anything was a waste of time ... keeping incorrect notions of how physics works out of a physics database is certainly not a waste of time.

 

[DrChinese]

Ahhhh, that sweet line through his name... it's like an icepick has been removed from my damned temple.

You're killing me!

Hey, better you than me!

 

[Cthugha]

To set the record straight, I for one never agreed that the description of atoms in superposition states as classical antennas has any physical significance beyond understanding the dipole-selection rules (I think this is what Cthuga is saying as well).

Just for the records: Yes, that was my intention. I did not mean to suggest any far-reaching analogies between classical antennas and the emission behavior of atoms.

 

[ZapperZ]

All discussions pertaining to the running of PF and policies should be done in the Feedback forum, not in this or any other threads in the physics subforums.

Zz.

 

[Frame Dragger]

You're killing me!

Hey, better you than me!

Thank you very much.

@SpectraCat: You don't strike me as a "cat" who falls for the same trick twice.

@ZapperZ: Noted. Seeing as you obviously read what I had to say on the subject, I can assume that I don't need to actually repeat it in that subforum?