| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Nov 2005 11:04:15 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
Has anyone ever proposed that all of the bizarre wierdnesses of quantum
mechanics, can be explained as a resonance effect? Is that not the most
reasonable explanation?
Emission from a source is a discrete phenomenon, as when an electron
drops from a higher level to a lower energy level, and emits a discrete
quantum of radiation. That is itself a resonance effect, because the
discrete levels of electron orbitals are determined by the discrete
standing waves that interfere constructively with themselves, as they
oscillate about the nucleus. But as soon as a packet of energy is
radiated from the source, it expands outward in concentric shells,
becomming progressively attenuated with distance from the source. There
is nothing quantal or particle-like about the wave travelling through
space, they are entirely an analog spatial phenomenon like waves on a
pond.
And when the wave arrives at the detector screen, the only thing that
makes the detection a discrete quantal event is because the mechanism
of detection again involves a resonance phenomenon. An electron must be
elevated by a discrete quantum of energy, due to the standing wave
patterns of the electrons around the detector nucleus. Any wave which
is not of exactly the right frequency (and thus energy) passes by
undiminished. If a set of weak tenuous waves from a variety of
different directions, all happen to interfere constructively near the
dector atom at just the right frequency to drive the electron up one
quantal level, then the passing waves will be diminished by exactly one
quantum of energy as the electron is boosted to its higher level.
So, in the twin slits experiment, it is incorrect to say that the
magnitude of the source is set so low that on average, there is only
one photon passing through the slits at any one time. That wording
gives the false impression that photons are flying through space one by
one, like little particles. In fact the waves are analog and
continuous, which is why they interfere passing through the slits, it
is only the detector that is triggered on average one photon at a time,
despite the fact that it is continuously bathed in an analog stream of
radiation, but only occasionally does that radiation summate locally
sufficient to trigger the detector.
The only thing that collapses the wave function, is not a conscious
sentient observer, but a mindless detector whose method of detection
involves the collapse of the wave function of continuous impinging
light, to the discrete and quantal event of an electron jumping up one
level.
Is that not the most reasonable explanation?
p.s. See also A Cartoon Epistemology:
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/cartoonepist/cartoonepist.html
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
25 Nov 2005 12:54:31 PM |
|
|
<slehar@cns.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:1132938255.440992.135010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Has anyone ever proposed that all of the bizarre wierdnesses of quantum
mechanics, can be explained as a resonance effect? Is that not the most
reasonable explanation?
<snip>
involves the collapse of the wave function of continuous impinging
light, to the discrete and quantal event of an electron jumping up one
level.
Is that not the most reasonable explanation?
It certainly is appealing. Various people have expressed
something like that before but you have given the most
lucid description I have seen.
The problem is that there are experiments that contradict
it. When one measures 'welcher weg' of a "single photon",
i.e. puts detectors by both slits of the two slit experiment or
dectors in both paths of a beam splitter, the detection
events seem to be anti-correlated. That is, a "single
photon" is detected at one detector or the other but
not both. (If reality were "analog" one would expect
the probability of detection to be uncorrelated.)
I haven't seen any defects in the experiments but
I'd say "individual photons" are rather difficult to track.
The individuality of "photons" is usually inferred.
You could google 'welcher weg', 'single photon',
'Hanbury Brown and Twiss'.
Also Wikipedia "double-slit experiment".
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "slehar" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
30 Nov 2005 02:40:04 PM |
|
|
Hi Ron Baker,
Sorry for the slow response--I picked a bad time to post just before a
deadline which has now passed. And excuse me if my questions are naive,
this is not at all my specialty. But in my specialty (philosophy of
consciousness) there is a lot of nonsense spouted about quantum
weirdness as an explanation for the mystery of consciousness, involving
the mysterious "observer" responsible for the collapse of the wave
function. What would please me most of all is if you could give me a
reference I can cite, for whoever proposed an explanation similar to
mine, i.e. to show that the mysterious "observer" is not necessary, and
that alternative interpretations of quantum theory exist.
Thank you for the "Welcher weg" argument. I guess my explanation does
not eliminate *all* the weirdness of quantum phenomena, only the
strange "observer" idea, and the wave/particle duality. There is still
entanglement between particles. But could that not also be explained as
a resonance phenomenon?
Say the light was an analog continuous stream of waves that passes
through both slits at once, with detectors set up on both alternate
paths. Either detector could be triggered by that wave, depending on
the chance of constructive interference triggering the detector just
so. But if one detector *is* triggered by the wave, it would
immediately absorb exactly one quantum of energy from that wave, and
not just at the location of the elevated electron in the detector, but
from a wider region of the wave encompassing also the second detector,
and that in turn would make it much less likely for the same wave to
trigger the second detector.
I realize this explanation is far to vague to be a "theory", but I was
hoping that either somebody more knowledgable has already proposed it,
so I could just cite him as a reference, or that there is a simple
explanation that proves the idea to be impossible, in which case I
would like to know it. But as vague and perhaps "weird" as my
explanation might sound, it is far less weird than the notion of
photons flying through space as individual particles, while at the same
time being analog expanding shells from the source, or the concept of
an intelligent conscious observer being required to collapse the wave
function with an observation.
slehar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
30 Nov 2005 04:52:39 PM |
|
|
"slehar" <slehar@cns.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:1133383204.090646.221340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi Ron Baker,
Sorry for the slow response--I picked a bad time to post just before a
deadline which has now passed. And excuse me if my questions are naive,
this is not at all my specialty. But in my specialty (philosophy of
consciousness) there is a lot of nonsense spouted about quantum
weirdness as an explanation for the mystery of consciousness, involving
Sounds like they are using quantum weirdness as the
gap in everybody's understanding in which to hide
the mystical essence of consciousness. ;)
the mysterious "observer" responsible for the collapse of the wave
function.
That is the Copenhagen Interpretation. It's rather metaphysical.
Schroedinger invented his famous cat to poke fun at it.
It seems the Many Worlds Interpretation is more popular
these days. But it is equally metaphysical and preposterous,
IMO. (But I don't have anything better.)
What would please me most of all is if you could give me a
reference I can cite, for whoever proposed an explanation similar to
mine, i.e. to show that the mysterious "observer" is not necessary, and
that alternative interpretations of quantum theory exist.
There are the interpretations mentioned above.
There is also Bohmian Mechanics. It eliminates
quantum weirdness and it works. People don't like
it because the math is harder (and it postulates
underlieing things that are invisible).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
I image determinism comes up in your discussions.
Under the widely accepted QM, determinism is dead.
There are *absolutely* random events.
(They are not the gap through which God or consciosness
work their magic. If they were they wouldn't be
random and we could detect that.)
Under Bohmian Mechanics determinism is not dead.
Either way, consciousness is just the functioning
of an entirely physical brain.
Thank you for the "Welcher weg" argument. I guess my explanation does
not eliminate *all* the weirdness of quantum phenomena, only the
strange "observer" idea, and the wave/particle duality. There is still
entanglement between particles. But could that not also be explained as
a resonance phenomenon?
Say the light was an analog continuous stream of waves that passes
through both slits at once, with detectors set up on both alternate
paths. Either detector could be triggered by that wave, depending on
the chance of constructive interference triggering the detector just
so. But if one detector *is* triggered by the wave, it would
immediately absorb exactly one quantum of energy from that wave, and
not just at the location of the elevated electron in the detector, but
from a wider region of the wave encompassing also the second detector,
and that in turn would make it much less likely for the same wave to
trigger the second detector.
You've described the collapse of (a classical-like) wave.
The thing is that it has to happen virtually instantaneously.
The detectors could be spaced lightyears apart yet when
one detected the "photon" the other must instantly know
(in order to match experiments).
Effects out-running the speed of light are troubling.
I realize this explanation is far to vague to be a "theory", but I was
hoping that either somebody more knowledgable has already proposed it,
so I could just cite him as a reference, or that there is a simple
explanation that proves the idea to be impossible, in which case I
would like to know it. But as vague and perhaps "weird" as my
explanation might sound, it is far less weird than the notion of
Your explanation is pretty much what was expected
to be up until the quantum weirdness started showing up
in experiments.
photons flying through space as individual particles, while at the same
time being analog expanding shells from the source, or the concept of
an intelligent conscious observer being required to collapse the wave
function with an observation.
I wonder what kind of consciousness is necessary in
order to collapse the wave function. Does it have to
have a certain IQ? Can a dog collapse a wave function?
How about a spider? Worm?
If I am asleep can I not collapse a wave function?
If there is a wave function on a deserted island and
there is no one to observe it, does it still collapse?
;)
slehar
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "slehar" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
01 Dec 2005 10:28:34 AM |
|
|
You've described the collapse of (a classical-like) wave.
The thing is that it has to happen virtually instantaneously.
The detectors could be spaced lightyears apart yet when
one detected the "photon" the other must instantly know
(in order to match experiments).
Effects out-running the speed of light are troubling.
Again, pardon my naivevity if I am way off-base, but didn't Feynman
posit particles travelling backwards in time to account for exactly
this kind of anomaly? I admit that my "explanation" (if something so
vague can be described as such) does not dispel all of the mystery of
quantum phenomena, all it attempts to dispel is the wave/particle
duality by eliminating the particle component entirely, and the weird
notion of wave functions collapsed by an observer. If one could dispel
those two (in more detail than I can offer), that would itself be an
accomplishment, would it not?
Excuse me but the "multiverse" theory, even if it accounts for the
experimental data, is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard of.
I would rather believe that God plays dice with the Devil on a barrel
of rum in hell, than that He spawns an entire new universe with
everything in it, for every one of the billions and billions of quantum
events going on in even the smallest chunk of matter! I know that
quantum theorists have to be ready for counter-intuitive weirdnesses,
but that one is really just going too far!
I will have to look up the Bohm stuff--I always liked the way he
thinks, as much as I can grasp, although I am easily scared off by even
simple mathematics.
I wonder what kind of consciousness is necessary in
order to collapse the wave function. Does it have to
have a certain IQ? Can a dog collapse a wave function?
How about a spider? Worm?
Exactly my thoughts!
But an explanation in terms of resonance effects sounds very appealing
to me. Again as a non-physicist math-impaired mental-image dreamer, I
suspect that the universe is entirely analog, and that the *only* thing
that makes it discrete is resonance! It is resonance that determines
that all particles of a certain type (protons, neutrons, electrons...)
are identical, (isn't that the essence of string theory?) and resonance
determines the discrete energy levels of electron orbitals, and
resonance determines the periodicity in the periodic table, and
resonance explains the emmission and absorption of waves, and so on and
so forth.
I have a personal interest in resonance for another reason, and that is
that I have proposed a theory that electrochemical standing (and
travelling) waves in the brain play an important role in the
computational principle of brain function, and it is the resonance
principle of our brains that explains our special affinity to music
(another pure resonance phenomenon of magnificent complexity!), as well
as our periodic and symmetrical gyrations in human dance, as well as
our affinity to periodic and symmetrical patterns in ornamental art and
architecture. You can see the computational functionality of resonance
already in the simplest primitive creatures, like the single-celled
paramecium, whose cilia wave in synchronized travelling waves for
propulsion, and the tentacles of jellyfish that also wave in periodic
symmetrical patterns, and in the periodic / symmetrical patterns of the
gaits of a horse (or other quadruped) such as the gallop, canter, trot,
etc, which correspond directly to the modes of oscillation of four
coupled oscilators, and so on and so forth. Harmonic resonance provides
the spatial and temporal "templates" that determine our spatial and
temporal perception and behavior.
( http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/dirhr1/dirhr1.html
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/hr1/hr1.html )
But thats another subject for another newsgroup!
Steve Lehar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
01 Dec 2005 08:17:24 PM |
|
|
"slehar" <slehar@cns.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:1133454514.565899.159600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You've described the collapse of (a classical-like) wave.
The thing is that it has to happen virtually instantaneously.
The detectors could be spaced lightyears apart yet when
one detected the "photon" the other must instantly know
(in order to match experiments).
Effects out-running the speed of light are troubling.
Again, pardon my naivevity if I am way off-base, but didn't Feynman
posit particles travelling backwards in time to account for exactly
this kind of anomaly?
Yeah. Weird, isn't it.
So are you saying that if collapse is OK for QM then it
is OK for your semi-classical waves?
Are you saying it is OK to add that weirdness to your
wave theory which was intended to avoid that
weirdness in QM?
I admit that my "explanation" (if something so
vague can be described as such) does not dispel all of the mystery of
quantum phenomena, all it attempts to dispel is the wave/particle
duality by eliminating the particle component entirely, and the weird
notion of wave functions collapsed by an observer. If one could dispel
those two (in more detail than I can offer), that would itself be an
accomplishment, would it not?
You would be guarenteed an invitation to Stokholm.
Excuse me but the "multiverse" theory, even if it accounts for the
experimental data, is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard of.
I would rather believe that God plays dice with the Devil on a barrel
of rum in hell, than that He spawns an entire new universe with
everything in it, for every one of the billions and billions of quantum
events going on in even the smallest chunk of matter! I know that
quantum theorists have to be ready for counter-intuitive weirdnesses,
but that one is really just going too far!
It's pretty far alright.
I will have to look up the Bohm stuff--I always liked the way he
thinks, as much as I can grasp, although I am easily scared off by even
simple mathematics.
I wonder what kind of consciousness is necessary in
order to collapse the wave function. Does it have to
have a certain IQ? Can a dog collapse a wave function?
How about a spider? Worm?
Exactly my thoughts!
But an explanation in terms of resonance effects sounds very appealing
to me. Again as a non-physicist math-impaired mental-image dreamer, I
suspect that the universe is entirely analog, and that the *only* thing
that makes it discrete is resonance!
I am also open to the possibility that that may be
impossible to determine.
It is resonance that determines
that all particles of a certain type (protons, neutrons, electrons...)
are identical, (isn't that the essence of string theory?)
I don't know enough to answer definitively but that
sounds right.
and resonance
determines the discrete energy levels of electron orbitals, and
resonance determines the periodicity in the periodic table, and
resonance explains the emmission and absorption of waves, and so on and
so forth.
No offense but that seems to me to be a bit of
an over generalization.
I have a personal interest in resonance for another reason, and that is
that I have proposed a theory that electrochemical standing (and
travelling) waves in the brain play an important role in the
computational principle of brain function, and it is the resonance
principle of our brains that explains our special affinity to music
It seems more likely to me that various things in nature that
have bearing on survival also produce sounds (lions roar, rumble
of rocks falling, buzz of honey bees, baby's cry).
Evolution has selected us to have some programmed
responses (mental states/feeling) to sounds. Music, as all sound,
stimulates
those same circuits elliciting a mixture of the associated
states/feelings.
(another pure resonance phenomenon of magnificent complexity!), as well
as our periodic and symmetrical gyrations in human dance, as well as
our affinity to periodic and symmetrical patterns in ornamental art and
architecture. You can see the computational functionality of resonance
already in the simplest primitive creatures, like the single-celled
paramecium, whose cilia wave in synchronized travelling waves for
propulsion, and the tentacles of jellyfish that also wave in periodic
symmetrical patterns, and in the periodic / symmetrical patterns of the
gaits of a horse (or other quadruped) such as the gallop, canter, trot,
etc, which correspond directly to the modes of oscillation of four
coupled oscilators, and so on and so forth. Harmonic resonance provides
the spatial and temporal "templates" that determine our spatial and
temporal perception and behavior.
( http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/dirhr1/dirhr1.html
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/hr1/hr1.html )
But thats another subject for another newsgroup!
Steve Lehar
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "slehar" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
02 Dec 2005 09:28:35 AM |
|
|
No offense but that seems to me to be a bit of
an over generalization.
What exactly is the over-generalization? The notion that the world is
entirely analog, and the only thing that makes it discrete is
resonance?
Think about it. There are two kinds of events or happenings in the
universe: cataclysmic chaotic unpredictable unique events, and periodic
regular repeating events. Every one of the latter that I can think of
are examples of resonance of one sort or another.
The most prominent example of the former is the Big Bang itself--a
single, unique, unitary event that could never have possibly been
predicted (if anything existed before it to make that prediction), and
it will never happen again, or at least if it does, it must also come
as a complete un-predictable surprise.
But that cataclysmic creational thunderclap left countless billions of
echos in its wake, in the form of particles, which are standing-wave
resonances of that primordial energy resonating round and round at
various harmonic frequencies, and the microwave background radiation,
which actually only *peaks* at microwave frequency, but leaves traces
across the spectrum at different frequencies, and every one of these
waves is itself a kind of oscillatory resonance, except in the form of
travelling waves, rather than standing waves. All that remains of the
Big Bang today is the resonance echos of that singular event, like the
waves in a pond after a stone is thrown in.
The particles from that creation interact in one of two ways: either
they collide with each other randomly and unpredictably, then move on
for an unpredictable interval till the next collision, or they fall
into a periodic resonant relationship, from protons and electrons that
merge into neutrons, forming a larger standing wave resonance, to
electron orbitals in periodic patterns around the atomic nucleus, to
atoms that merge into molecules with their own characteristic larger
resonances, to agglomerations of particles from dust grains to
snowballs to asteroids to planets to stars, which admittedly are not so
resonant, but more irregular.
A planet in orbit around a sun is another periodic resonance, like a
pendulum swinging in circles instead of back and forth, with a
continuous range of elliptical rotations in between. The resonance of
planetary orbits is seen most clearly during their formation from the
planetary disk, with countless rings and spokes, like those now seen in
the rings of Saturn, that eventually condense into near-circular orbits
spaced at harmonic intervals due to resonance effects between planets
at different orbital radii. Everything on earth that is regular and
predictable, from the daily rotation of day and night, to the seasonal
variation, to the annual cycle, to the cycle of ice ages, is again a
resonance phenomenon. All else is chaotic and random and unpredictable.
Ok, I'll admit I'm taking it a bit too far. It is perhaps an
over-generalization, there are other patterns which are not exactly
resonance, for example the periodic pattern of a DNA molecule is not
itself a resonance effect, even though its component atoms and
molecules are each tiny resonances. But there is a kernel of truth
there, that suggests that there is something truly magical and
creational about the principle of resonance, it is the only physical
principle that postpones the steady advance of entropy, and
spontaneously creates periodic order out of chaotic disorder.
I have proposed ... it is the resonance principle of our brains
that explains our special affinity to music
It seems more likely to me that various things in nature that
have bearing on survival also produce sounds (lions roar, rumble
of rocks falling, buzz of honey bees, baby's cry). Evolution has
selected us to have some programmed responses (mental states/feeling)
to sounds. Music, as all sound, stimulates those same circuits elliciting
a mixture of the associated states/feelings.
Well think about the phenomenon of *consonance*, i.e. which notes sound
good with which other notes. When the frequencies of notes f1 & f2 are
related by harmonic intervals (octaves, fifths, thirds,...) then they
are perceived to be consonant, they sound good together. There is
nothing in nature that has those relations except for manifestations of
resonance. Then think of periodicity--when notes form periodic
patterns, not just simple alternations CGCGCGCG..., but compound
patterns, CEGECEGE..., CEEGEECEEGEE, and compound hierarchical
patterns, CECEGEGEADADGEGE, with compound hierarchies of compound
hierarchies in endless symmetrical and periodic patterns, stepping on
harmonically related frequencies, THOSE are the melodies that we find
aesthetically appealing, and yet nothing in nature has those kinds of
patterns except for harmonic resonances of various sorts. I claim that
this is no accident, but a manifestation of the fact that resonance is
the principle of pattern formation and detection in the brain.
Take a look at this brief cartoon presentation of the magic of harmonic
resonance and how it operates in biology and in the brain.
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/HRez/HRez.html
(this is work in progress, to be extended when I have the time)
Steve Lehar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
02 Dec 2005 11:03:04 AM |
|
|
"slehar" <slehar@cns.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:1133537315.903073.253980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No offense but that seems to me to be a bit of
an over generalization.
What exactly is the over-generalization? The notion that the world is
entirely analog, and the only thing that makes it discrete is
resonance?
Well you silently snipped the context, but, yes, that
is a generalization, an opinion, an aesthetic observation.
It is kind of like saying 'Everything is blue except that which
is a different color.'
Think about it. There are two kinds of events or happenings in the
universe: cataclysmic chaotic unpredictable unique events, and periodic
regular repeating events. Every one of the latter that I can think of
are examples of resonance of one sort or another.
The most prominent example of the former is the Big Bang itself--a
single, unique, unitary event that could never have possibly been
predicted (if anything existed before it to make that prediction), and
it will never happen again, or at least if it does, it must also come
as a complete un-predictable surprise.
But that cataclysmic creational thunderclap left countless billions of
echos in its wake, in the form of particles, which are standing-wave
resonances of that primordial energy resonating round and round at
various harmonic frequencies, and the microwave background radiation,
which actually only *peaks* at microwave frequency, but leaves traces
across the spectrum at different frequencies, and every one of these
waves is itself a kind of oscillatory resonance, except in the form of
travelling waves, rather than standing waves. All that remains of the
Big Bang today is the resonance echos of that singular event, like the
waves in a pond after a stone is thrown in.
I'd say calling a galaxy analogous to a wave in a pond is a whopper
of a generalization.
The particles from that creation interact in one of two ways: either
they collide with each other randomly and unpredictably, then move on
for an unpredictable interval till the next collision, or they fall
into a periodic resonant relationship, from protons and electrons that
merge into neutrons, forming a larger standing wave resonance, to
electron orbitals in periodic patterns around the atomic nucleus, to
atoms that merge into molecules with their own characteristic larger
resonances, to agglomerations of particles from dust grains to
snowballs to asteroids to planets to stars, which admittedly are not so
resonant, but more irregular.
Yup. Everything is resonant except that which is not.
A planet in orbit around a sun is another periodic resonance, like a
pendulum swinging in circles instead of back and forth, with a
continuous range of elliptical rotations in between. The resonance of
planetary orbits is seen most clearly during their formation from the
planetary disk, with countless rings and spokes, like those now seen in
the rings of Saturn, that eventually condense into near-circular orbits
spaced at harmonic intervals due to resonance effects between planets
at different orbital radii. Everything on earth that is regular and
predictable, from the daily rotation of day and night, to the seasonal
variation, to the annual cycle, to the cycle of ice ages, is again a
resonance phenomenon. All else is chaotic and random and unpredictable.
Yup. Everything is resonant except that which is not.
Ok, I'll admit I'm taking it a bit too far. It is perhaps an
over-generalization, there are other patterns which are not exactly
resonance, for example the periodic pattern of a DNA molecule is not
itself a resonance effect, even though its component atoms and
molecules are each tiny resonances. But there is a kernel of truth
there, that suggests that there is something truly magical and
creational about the principle of resonance, it is the only physical
That is aethetics, opinion, faith.
principle that postpones the steady advance of entropy, and
spontaneously creates periodic order out of chaotic disorder.
Clearly you don't understand thermodynamics.
(Nor chaos theory.)
I have proposed ... it is the resonance principle of our brains
that explains our special affinity to music
It seems more likely to me that various things in nature that
have bearing on survival also produce sounds (lions roar, rumble
of rocks falling, buzz of honey bees, baby's cry). Evolution has
selected us to have some programmed responses (mental states/feeling)
to sounds. Music, as all sound, stimulates those same circuits
elliciting
a mixture of the associated states/feelings.
Well think about the phenomenon of *consonance*, i.e. which notes sound
good with which other notes. When the frequencies of notes f1 & f2 are
related by harmonic intervals (octaves, fifths, thirds,...) then they
are perceived to be consonant, they sound good together. There is
nothing in nature that has those relations except for manifestations of
resonance. Then think of periodicity--when notes form periodic
patterns, not just simple alternations CGCGCGCG..., but compound
patterns, CEGECEGE..., CEEGEECEEGEE, and compound hierarchical
patterns, CECEGEGEADADGEGE, with compound hierarchies of compound
hierarchies in endless symmetrical and periodic patterns, stepping on
harmonically related frequencies, THOSE are the melodies that we find
aesthetically appealing, and yet nothing in nature has those kinds of
patterns except for harmonic resonances of various sorts.
But here, on the other hand, you say that nothing is resonant
except that which is.
I claim that
this is no accident,
Who did it then?
but a manifestation of the fact that resonance is
the principle of pattern formation and detection in the brain.
But according to you everything is resonance, so the above
doesn't seem to say much.
Take a look at this brief cartoon presentation of the magic of harmonic
resonance and how it operates in biology and in the brain.
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/HRez/HRez.html
(this is work in progress, to be extended when I have the time)
I look forward to the calculations and controlled experiments.
Steve Lehar
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "slehar" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
03 Dec 2005 07:19:33 AM |
|
|
Take a look at this brief cartoon presentation of the magic of harmonic
resonance and how it operates in biology and in the brain.
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/HRez/HRez.html
I look forward to the calculations and controlled experiments.
The calculations and experiments are here!
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/dirhr1/dirhr1.html
See the illusory grouping percepts in Figure 4, and the computer
simulation replication of those percepts in Figure16, with equations
and calculations in the section *Directional Harmonic Model*.
Steve Lehar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
03 Dec 2005 08:35:08 PM |
|
|
"slehar" <slehar@cns.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:1133615973.776959.284010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Take a look at this brief cartoon presentation of the magic of harmonic
resonance and how it operates in biology and in the brain.
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/HRez/HRez.html
I look forward to the calculations and controlled experiments.
The calculations and experiments are here!
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/dirhr1/dirhr1.html
See the illusory grouping percepts in Figure 4, and the computer
simulation replication of those percepts in Figure16, with equations
and calculations in the section *Directional Harmonic Model*.
Steve Lehar
There are no experiments there and the calculation
have no discernable relevance.
BTW, you have the expression for the Gaussian
distribution wrong. The 2 pi in the denominator
is supposed to be square rooted.
Did they "publish" it that way?
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "slehar" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
05 Dec 2005 07:32:39 AM |
|
|
The 2 pi in the denominator
is supposed to be square rooted.
Did they "publish" it that way?
Ooh, you're right! Lucky it only re-scales the values, it does not
invalidate the analysis.
Yes they did publish it that way--and in a reputable peer-reviewed
journal too!
There are no experiments there and the calculation
have no discernable relevance.
Hahahaha! Do I detect an "attitude"?
The experiment is in Figure 4, where you view the stimulus (patterns of
dots) and observe (by inspection) the illusory grouping lines that
appear between certain patterns of dots according to regular and
repeatable laws (as described in the text). There is a respectable
literature of theorists who observe and quantify such illusory
perceptual experiences, and model them with mathematical and computer
models in an effort to replicate the perceptual effects. Many of us
believe this to be a very promising approach to investigating the
mechanism of visual perception.
So the relevance of the calculation is that it reproduces the pattern
of perceptual effects through all these diverse stimuli.
But what is really interesting in this particular study is that the
patterns of groupings observed between dots cannot be explained by the
kinds of simple models proposed to account for collinear grouping
effects, such as those in Figure 1 (and Figure 4B), in which a local
edge stimulus triggers a global edge percept as a linear extrapolation
outward from the local edge, but this data requires a more complex
explanation using a basis set of vertex types, like those shown in
Figure 12A and D, as if the brain possessed spatial "templates" for
each of these vertex types, and applied those templates at every
location and orientation across the visual field. In other words, the
model that accounts for this data tends towards a *combinatorial
explosion* in the number of required templates, (one for every vertex
type, replicated at every orientation, and replicated at every location
across the visual field) and this it casts doubt on the whole notion of
pattern detection in the brain by way of spatial templates.
You may well ask who would have thought that the brain uses spatial
templates in the first place? Well it turns out that it is hard to come
up with a viable alternative. How else would the brain create a cell
that responds to the presence of a certain pattern in the visual field,
except by providing that cell with a spatial "receptive field" whose
pattern of excitatory and inhibitory synapses define the spatial
pattern it is tuned to detect? The spatial template idea also
corresponds to the image processing operation of spatial convolution,
which is used extensively in computer image pattern recognition, where
that same combinatorial explosion problem has been encountered.
The real significance of the Directional Harmonic theory is not so much
that it accounts for this particular set of dot-grouping percepts, but
that it introduces the possibility of using standing waves in the brain
as a representation of spatial structure in perception, cognition, and
motor control. The standing wave offers a far more flexible, elastic,
and adaptive concept of spatial matching than that offered by the
spatial template.
And the fact that nature uses standing waves as a spatial template in
that other, unrelated biological phenomenon of *embryological
morphogenesis* (did you read my cartoon presentation?
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/HRez/HRez.html ) offers an *existence
proof* that spatial standing waves both *can* and *do* serve as a
principle of spatial representation in biological systems, and that
representation exhibits the same holistic elastic adaptable properties
observed in human perception.
In the field of computational neuroscience, this is every bit as
significant as proposing a whole new explanation of quantum mechanics
is in physics.
But you have to have your "Big Vision" goggles on to even see the
significance.
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
25 Nov 2005 02:57:28 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:54:31 GMT) it happened "Ron Baker,
Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in
<H5Jhf.21558$2k6.12065@tornado.socal.rr.com>:
he problem is that there are experiments that contradict
it. When one measures 'welcher weg' of a "single photon",
i.e. puts detectors by both slits of the two slit experiment or
dectors in both paths of a beam splitter, the detection
events seem to be anti-correlated. That is, a "single
photon" is detected at one detector or the other but
not both. (If reality were "analog" one would expect
the probability of detection to be uncorrelated.)
The probality of detection ios among other things set by the thermal noise
in te hdetector.
This makes detection of 2 signals AT THE SAME TIME extremely unlikely.
(Especially if you claim to reduce transmitter strength so detectors
'just' trigger :-).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
25 Nov 2005 04:09:21 PM |
|
|
<slehar@cns.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:1132938255.440992.135010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Has anyone ever proposed that all of the bizarre wierdnesses of quantum
mechanics, can be explained as a resonance effect? Is that not the most
reasonable explanation?
Write down the equation for "reasonable". Classical resonance
isn't sufficient to that observed.
Emission from a source is a discrete phenomenon, as when an electron
drops from a higher level to a lower energy level, and emits a discrete
quantum of radiation. That is itself a resonance effect,
Yes, but not a classical effect. Each state occupies a phase-
space volume of h^3. A transition occurs because the two
states overlap in phase space.
because the
discrete levels of electron orbitals are determined by the discrete
standing waves that interfere constructively with themselves, as they
oscillate about the nucleus.
Nonsense.
But as soon as a packet of energy is
radiated from the source, it expands outward in concentric shells,
becomming progressively attenuated with distance from the source.
No. A single photon can't be emitted in a spherically
symmetric fashion.
There
is nothing quantal or particle-like about the wave travelling through
space, they are entirely an analog spatial phenomenon like waves on a
pond.
slehar confuses the probability density for a large number
of random transitions with the energy flux of a single photon.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
25 Nov 2005 02:44:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Has anyone ever proposed that all of the bizarre wierdnesses of quantum
mechanics, can be explained as a resonance effect? Is that not the most
reasonable explanation?
Do you mean explained to students, to help them understand quantum
mechanics, or explained so that we don't need quantum mechanics any more,
just resonance?
Emission from a source is a discrete phenomenon, as when an electron
drops from a higher level to a lower energy level, and emits a discrete
quantum of radiation. That is itself a resonance effect, because the
discrete levels of electron orbitals are determined by the discrete
standing waves that interfere constructively with themselves, as they
oscillate about the nucleus.
Okay...
But as soon as a packet of energy is
radiated from the source, it expands outward in concentric shells,
becomming progressively attenuated with distance from the source. There
is nothing quantal or particle-like about the wave travelling through
space, they are entirely an analog spatial phenomenon like waves on a
pond.
Er, in what picture? The canonical Schroedinger picture? Path-integral QFT?
And when the wave arrives at the detector screen, the only thing that
makes the detection a discrete quantal event is because the mechanism
of detection again involves a resonance phenomenon. An electron must be
elevated by a discrete quantum of energy, due to the standing wave
patterns of the electrons around the detector nucleus.
No, that won't work. It doesn't explain the photoelectric effect, which was
a big part of the reason quantum mechanics was developed in the first place.
[...]
In general your ideas are too vague to be helpful. They're similar to the
disconnected phenomenological ideas of the 1910s and 1920s that ultimately
led to a unified quantum mechanics. It's quantum mechanics that provides a
foundation for these ideas, not the other way around. Whatever ultimately
replaces quantum mechanics will have to be more precise than it, not less.
p.s. See also A Cartoon Epistemology:
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/cartoonepist/cartoonepist.html
Neat.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "slehar" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
30 Nov 2005 02:56:31 PM |
|
|
Hi Ben,
Sorry for the slow response--I posted at a bad time just before a
deadline which has now passed.
Has anyone ever proposed that all of the bizarre wierdnesses of quantum
mechanics, can be explained as a resonance effect?
Do you mean explained to students, to help them understand quantum
mechanics, or explained so that we don't need quantum mechanics any more,
just resonance?
Well there are just two weirdnesses of quantum mechanics that I would
like to eliminate, the idea of quanta as discrete particles flying
through space, while at the same time being expanding shells from a
source, and the notion of an intelligent conscious observer being
required to collapse the wave function. Both of those ideas sound very
strange to me, I would be happier with a more reasonable explanation.
Actually I was hoping that something along the lines I propose has
already been proposed, in which case I would like to know by whom.
And when the wave arrives at the detector screen, the only thing that
makes the detection a discrete quantal event is because the mechanism
of detection again involves a resonance phenomenon. An electron must be
elevated by a discrete quantum of energy, due to the standing wave
patterns of the electrons around the detector nucleus.
No, that won't work. It doesn't explain the photoelectric effect, which was
a big part of the reason quantum mechanics was developed in the first place.
As I understand it, the initial mystery of the photoelectric effect was
that the frequency, or wavelength, of the light determined whether it
was absorbed or not, and that light of the wrong frequency would not be
absorbed, no matter how great the intensity. Isn't that exactly what
you would expect from a resonance effect? The impinging radiation must
resonate with an electron in order to trigger absorption.
In general your ideas are too vague to be helpful. They're similar to the
disconnected phenomenological ideas of the 1910s and 1920s that ultimately
led to a unified quantum mechanics.
What about the notions of quanta as discrete particles flying through
space, and the notion of an intelligent observer being required to
collapse the wave function? Are these ideas now largely discounted, or
are they still widely held? If they were challenged in the 1910's and
1920's, were there viable alternatives proposed that were similar to
mine? Are those alternatives widely held now, or have they been
discounted since then?
slehar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
30 Nov 2005 04:14:18 PM |
|
|
slehar wrote:
Well there are just two weirdnesses of quantum mechanics that I would
like to eliminate, the idea of quanta as discrete particles flying
through space, while at the same time being expanding shells from a
source,
Thats not how it's pictured. It's not an expanding shell. A single
orbital electron dropping to a lower energy level dumps that energy
into the electromagnetic field, producing a single photon with energy
equal to that of the electronic transition.
An orbital electron dropping to a lower level is an emitter. Another
such electron with higher energy levels available to it can be an
absorber. In the formalism of mainstream QM, whether the photon
interacts with the absorber, and exactly what path it takes to get
there, is determined problablistically.
and the notion of an intelligent conscious observer being
required to collapse the wave function.
This isn't universally, or even nowadays widely, accepted.
Both of those ideas sound very
strange to me, I would be happier with a more reasonable explanation.
It doesn't matter so much that a theory "feels" strange/reasonable.
All that matters is if it actually works for a living. QM as a formal
theory is a notoriously hard worker.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
25 Nov 2005 02:57:28 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:44:01 +0000) it happened Ben Rudiak-Gould
<br276deleteme@cam.ac.uk> wrote in <dm7t2b$ahv$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>:
No, that won't work. It doesn't explain the photoelectric effect, which was
a big part of the reason quantum mechanics was developed in the first place.
See my postings 'explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective'
some month ago in this group.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
26 Nov 2005 10:46:02 AM |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2005 09:04:15 -0800, wrote:
Has anyone ever proposed that all of the bizarre wierdnesses of quantum
mechanics, can be explained as a resonance effect? Is that not the most
reasonable explanation?
Emission from a source is a discrete phenomenon, as when an electron
drops from a higher level to a lower energy level, and emits a discrete
quantum of radiation. That is itself a resonance effect, because the
discrete levels of electron orbitals are determined by the discrete
standing waves that interfere constructively with themselves, as they
oscillate about the nucleus. But as soon as a packet of energy is
radiated from the source, it expands outward in concentric shells,
becomming progressively attenuated with distance from the source.
Ok so far.
There is nothing quantal or particle-like about the wave travelling through
space, they are entirely an analog spatial phenomenon like waves on a
pond.
I don't think this is the case. According to the following, no matter
how much the wave packet spreads out, it still remains a coherent
entity. So when an electron starts to absorb the packet, the packet
disappears like a balloon popping and the electron gets the lot.
For a discussion see: "The ProWave Interpretation"
http://www.quantummatter.com/wave.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "slehar" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect? |
01 Dec 2005 09:40:36 AM |
|
|
Hi Peter,
Sorry for the slow response--I posted at a bad time just before a
deadline, which has now thankfully passed.
Thank you for your reply, and thanks especially for your link to Dan
Provenzano's "Pro Wave" theory. That was exactly the kind of theory I
was hoping somebody had proposed!
( http://www.quantummatter.com/wave.html )
You are right that light waves cannot be completely ordinary wave
phenomena, there remains the issue of entanglement, that Provenzano
explains with the analogy of the popping balloon. As soon as one
detector detects the wave, the entire wave function collapses, like a
popping balloon, which prevents another detector from detecting a
different portion of that self-same wave. I prefer an analogy with a
radio or television antenna. I remember my amazement, as a boy, when I
first examined an old-fashioned rooftop television antenna close up,
and discovered that several of its metal crossbars were attached only
by an insulating plastic frame, and thus were electrically insulated
from the two main crossbars that were connected to the antenna wires
back down to the TV. How can components which are not even connected
electrically to the wires, have any effect on the TV signal? The
answer, of course, is that each crossbar alters the entire
electro-magnetic environment around the antenna, which cannot be
considered as a series of local pieces, but must be considered as a
single interacting whole. By analogy, I imagine that when an analog
continuous wave of light triggers a local electron on a detector screen
to a higher energy level, it is not only that electron that is involved
in the absorption, but that a larger region of the detector screen acts
as an antenna that collectively traps the wave, although only one
localized electron changes state as a result of that reception, and
thus the detection appears to be a localized point-like event. But I am
no physicist, and I realize that my idea is far too vague to be
considered a real theory of any sort. That is why I was delighted to
discover that someone who *is* more mathematically- and theoretically-
abled than myself, has been thinking along these lines.
My remaining question is: What ever happened to Dan Provenzano and his
"Pro Wave" theory? Has his concept of an all-analog explanation, and
thus elimination of the particle aspect of the wave/particle duality,
ever received any more general recognition and acceptance? Or has it
been quietly disproved in the interim? A Google search on the subject
produces very little in the way of hits.
Steve Lehar
.
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|