Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
No Collapse Theory

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on February 5, 2002 16:02:28 UTC

The all-fields interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes that the fields or quantum waves collapse to a point in order to interact with other kinds of fields. The all-particles interpetation (no fields or quantum waves, just math probabilities) does not need a collapse theory as the particles are already close to being points. However, according to Feymann's quantum electrodynamics, anti-particles coming back from the future are required. Contrary to what Alex claims, these anti-particles must exist beyond the uncertainty time in order to solve double-slit paradox.

Personally, I prefer the all-fields approach. The collapse theory has to be a deflation down to a size where the unified field exists. That is, for a field of one kind, say an EM field, to interact with a field of a different kind, say an electron field, both must shrink to a size where they both become the unified field. So the collapse theory must make different fields become the same field, namely the unified field. That is why the collapse is essentially down to a point.

How can occur is not known. But there is a theory of the opposite effect, namely the "inflation theory" in which a point in the early universe expanded tens of orders of magnitude to become larger than what our telescopes can ever see, bigger than our event horizon. If that can happen, then a small amount on ongoing deflation in oreder to couple disparate fields is not so extraordinary. Some day I should ask Guth what he thinks of that, but I got laid-off from the job where we used to meet occasionally at lunch time.

In the all particles interpretation there is no explanation for how a particle of one kind can turn into a particle of another kind. In the all-fields interpretation, the change of field types can be understood via an intermediate transition into a unified field from which any other type of field can emmerge. That also ex-lains the creation of virtual particles, or rather virtual fields. They emmerge from a space so small that a unified field can exist there via the uncertainty principle.

At this point all I can say further to convince you is




Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins