Electron magnetic moment calculated precisely

Sep 11, 2012 by Anne Ju

(Phys.org)—An electron, as well as other subatomic particles with an electric charge, is actually a little magnet—it spins like a top, giving it its own magnetic moment.

It's the subtle change in this magnetic moment caused by emission and reabsorption of photons, a called the anomalous magnetic moment, that Toichiro "Tom" Kinoshita, the Goldwin Smith Professor of Emeritus, has studied over his long career. Kinoshita became emeritus in 1995.

In two Physical Review Letters papers accepted for publication, Kinoshita and colleagues have calculated the value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and muon to the most precise degree known to physics.

The papers, co-authored by Kinoshita's last Ph.D. student Makiko Nio of RIKEN institute of Japan, along with M. Hayakawa and T. Aoyama of Nagoya University of Japan, explain how the researchers have evaluated the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron and muon up to the fifth power of the . This is the fundamental fixed value of an electromagnetic interaction.

It's an unprecedented accurate calculation that involved more than 12,000 complex Feynman diagrams, which describe pictorially how electrons and photons interact. The researchers were able to achieve this calculation over 10 years of work on supercomputers at RIKEN. The calculations enabled the researchers to determine the anomalous value to a level of precision of one part in 1.5 billion.

and forces are described very well by the Standard Model of Physics, Kinoshita says, but there are some indications that remains to be discovered—a driving principle of his work.

"If you push theory and experiment hard enough, you might get to the point where the theory and experiment definitely disagree," he said. "And that means there is some new physics just visible beyond the distant horizon."

Explore further: Vortex of electrons provides unprecedented information on magnetic quantum states in solids

Related Stories

Spin-polarized electrons on demand

Jan 15, 2009

Many hopes are pinned on spintronics. In the future it could replace electronics, which in the race to produce increasingly rapid computer components, must at sometime reach its limits. Different from electronics, where whole ...

Spin-polarized electrons on demand

Jan 21, 2009

Many hopes are pinned on spintronics. In the future it could replace electronics, which in the race to produce increasingly rapid computer components, must at sometime reach its limits. Different from electronics, where whole ...

Scientists make magnetic new graphene discovery

Apr 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- University of Maryland researchers have discovered a way to control magnetic properties of graphene that could lead to powerful new applications in magnetic storage and magnetic random access ...

Recommended for you

Scientists film magnetic memory in super slow-motion

18 hours ago

Researchers at DESY have used high-speed photography to film one of the candidates for the magnetic data storage devices of the future in action. The film was taken using an X-ray microscope and shows magnetic ...

Particles, waves and ants

Nov 26, 2014

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gwrede
2.5 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2012
Two things come to mind here. First, "calculation that involved more than 12,000 complex Feynman diagrams" goes to show that this stuff is getting so far off a normal person, it's not fun anymore. Second, but maybe more important, is that it may be simply impossible to describe nature with too many decimals. "Elementary particles and forces are described very well by the Standard Model of Physics, Kinoshita says, but there are some indications that new physics remains to be discovered".

In other words, every time we measure something with enough precision, we will find that it subtly deviates from or existing model. And then it's time to create a new, more precise model. It may well be that we'll never see the day when (for example the electron magnetic moment) is calculated with arbitrary precision.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 11, 2012
It concerns me that should deviations from calculation be found, the Toichiro Kinoshita and other physicists seriously consider only one of two options - that option being "new physics to discover".

New epicycles to discover..

The other option of course is that the existing physics they used to perform the calculation is fundamentally wrong.
Argiod
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
It may well be that we'll never see the day when (for example the electron magnetic moment) is calculated with arbitrary precision.


All precision is arbitrary; only as accurate as is practical to accomplish the task at hand. Example; we only need two decimal places to keep track of money, even though we could contrive to create a smaller unit than a penny, it would be impractical. Or, I could get totally anal and insist that my home be built to nano-tolerances. But, again, it wouldn't be practical or economically feasible. Our models must be scaled to the needs of the task being modeled. Otherwise, we might as well try to measure the distance between NYC and SF with a centimeter rule...
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Sep 11, 2012
Calculating to an arbitrary precision will be difficult, because at no time has nature measured the electron moment to a perfect precision.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2012
New epicycles to discover..

The other option of course is that the existing physics they used to perform the calculation is fundamentally wrong.
If it is based on QED you can bet your ass on it that it is incorrect!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
"calculation that involved more than 12,000 complex Feynman diagrams" goes to show that this stuff is getting so far off a normal person, it's not fun anymore.

For those who understand Feynman diagrams it's fun. You just have to put in that bit of effort. Science is like that: it requires that you do some work.

New epicycles to discover.. The other option of course is that the existing physics they used to perform the calculation is fundamentally wrong.

That really depends on what you call 'fundamentally wrong'. Is Newtonian gravity fundamentally wrong? It's a very good approximation for cases significantly slower than the speed of light. There's no 'right and wrong' if something works to some degree - just 'useful' and 'not so useful'. If you say that something is wrong because it wil not give you the exact value to the last digit then all scientific theories are wrong (mostly because Uncertainty tells us there is no last digit, while algorithms give you a last digit)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2012
For those who understand Feynman diagrams it's fun. You just have to put in that bit of effort. Science is like that: it requires that you do some work.
Any calculation that requires renormalisation to get an answer is FUDGING: It is not physics OR mathematics: It is just plain nonsense!

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2012
Any calculation that requires renormalisation to get an answer is FUDGING: It is not physics OR mathematics:

Mathematics is an abstract tool. Physics is what works. If renormalization works (and it seems to, since the predictions arrived at through renormalization have held true for a wide variety of experiments) then it really doesn't matter whether the idea or renormalization is to your liking (or meshes with what you deem to 'make sense') or not.

Reality is the arbiter of what is true. Not you.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2012
Mathematics is an abstract tool. Physics is what works. If renormalization works (and it seems to, since the predictions arrived at through renormalization have held true for a wide variety of experiments) then it really doesn't matter whether the idea or renormalization is to your liking (or meshes with what you deem to 'make sense') or not.
It does matter: If you have any mathematical expression with a zillion terms, and are allowed to replace infinities with the values you want, you MUST always get the answers you want. This is not physics: It is utter nonsense!

Reality is the arbiter of what is true. Not you.
daywalk3r
1.8 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2012
If you have any mathematical expression with a zillion terms, and are allowed to replace infinities with the values you want, you MUST always get the answers you want. This is not physics: It is utter nonsense!

Well, the truth is, that all calculations ever used in physics will allways be just an "approximation of reality", unless you decide to work within a framework which sets absolute discrete limits (like Planck units).

But does that render all those calculations nonsense?

If absolute precision is what you seek, then Yes..
Though then, one also has to ask how much sense there is, in seeking nonsensee? :-D

mostly because Uncertainty tells us there is no last digit

Can't really agree, as that particular "Uncertainty" you speak of, has about as much to do with it, as it has with the inability to calculate the last digit of Pi.

It does a good job however, in holding certain "discrete theories" afloat, against the viscious tides of scrutiny of reality :-)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2012
Well, the truth is, that all calculations ever used in physics will allways be just an "approximation of reality",
I agree; but not all calculations are based on what is really physically possible, even when the calculation seems to fit the data. QED is definitely not based on physics-reality: It is pure Voodoo!

But does that render all those calculations nonsense?
If they are based on concepts which are physically impossible, they are nonsense. Feynman diagrams are based on the path-integral method according to which coherent wave fronts can follow any path even if it requires the wave-fronts to be non-parallel. Coherent wave-fronts can never be non-parallel.

antialias_physorg
not rated yet Sep 13, 2012
I think you forget that mathematics is a tool invented by humans - and that there is absolutely no guarantee that it is a tool that is capable of being used for describing waht the universe really is.

There are other approaches which do not rely on approximative maths (e.g. look nito the history books and you will find something like Babylonian counting science where extrapolations/formulae were not part of how to describe nature - but which is also a method that can arguably describe nature to an arbitrarily exact degree)

If they are based on concepts which are physically impossible, they are nonsense

The map is not the territory. We use the number zero all the time in math and physics. But zero is also an impossible state for anything to be in (if something has a zero value then it doesn't have that state at all). Does this mean that all maths that uses zeroes is therefore useless?

Coherent wave-fronts can never be non-parallel.

Metamaterials would disagree.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2012
I think you forget that mathematics is a tool invented by humans -
No I am not
and that there is absolutely no guarantee that it is a tool that is capable of being used for describing waht the universe really is.
It has been doing a very good job in the cases where there were no reason to FUDGE it, as it is being fudged in QED.

There are other approaches which do not rely on approximative maths .....
You are writing claptrap here!

The map is not the territory.
So?
We use the number zero all the time in math and physics. But zero is also an impossible state for anything to be in (if something has a zero value then it doesn't have that state at all).
REALLY? How do you get to this "deep" wisdom?
Does this mean that all maths that uses zeroes is therefore useless?
Maths which subtract infinity from infinity is obviously useless.

Coherent wave-fronts can never be non-parallel.

Metamaterials would disagree
How?
vega12
5 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2012
Don't feed the wild animals everyone. They will just hang around and keep begging for more food. I'm sure most of you will be able to draw the appropriate connections for this metaphor to make sense.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2012
You are writing claptrap here!

The babylonians had a system of conuting math - in shich one could not transfer knowledge as we do when we say: "one silo contains x number of kernels of grain, so two silos will contain 2*x number of kernels of grain"
The babylonians would not have acepted that as accurate. They had to count out the number in each silo. While this is enormously less efficient it is, on the other hand, not prone to estimation error.

Metamaterials would disagree

How?

You can fashion a metamaterial that will take in an EM front. Move separate parts of that front in separate (non-parallel) directions and then reassemble the wavefront.
http://en.wikiped...loaking. If you add materials with different propagation speeds along the paths into the mix you can even cloak entire events
http://www.popsci...e-events
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2012
Metamaterials would disagree

How?

You can fashion a metamaterial that will take in an EM front. Move separate parts of that front in separate (non-parallel) directions and then reassemble the wavefront.
http://en.wikiped...loaking.


Thank you! But this is not the issue: Obviously boundary conditions can GUIDE the wave-fronts to be non-parallel: But when the wave-fronts move in this manner the wave is NOT a coherent wave anymore. The latter demands parallel wave-fronts.

Thus, to assume that within free space (no boundary conditions) wave-fronts are able to move in a non-parallel fashion is wrong. Both a photon-wave and an electron-wave are coherent waves in free space, modelled by Maxwell's wave-equation, and must therefore propagate with parallel wave-fronts.

Feynman path-integrals assume that these wave-fronts can follow one another along any arbitrary path through space. This is physically impossible.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 15, 2012
Claptrap!

Empty space is known to be full of virtual particles that manifest from the energy available in empty space itself.

This energy density has been computed, and measured. Small quantities of real energy have been extracted from the vacuum of empty space.

"Thus, to assume that within free space (no boundary conditions) wave-fronts are able to move in a non-parallel fashion is wrong." - iohanf

If there are particles, then there is scattering.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 15, 2012
Maxwell tells us that c is finite. Subsequent physics has shown that positive and negative charges cancel and due to time symmetry therefore arise from a state of zero charge.

I c is finite and charge differentials can be created and destroyed, it follows that there is a charge force carrier that moves through space that is also quantized.

Maxwel's view simply doesn't work.

"Both a photon-wave and an electron-wave are coherent waves in free space, modelled by Maxwell's wave-equation.."

Arguing Maxwell's view is pointless.

You might as well argue that the world is flat.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 15, 2012
lim(x->0) (1/x - 1/x) = 0

"Maths which subtract infinity from infinity is obviously useless." - johanf

Clearly not.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 15, 2012
They are apparently physically for objects for which you are familiar.

"If they are based on concepts which are physically impossible, they are nonsense" - johanf

But you are not familiar with the properties of things that are smaller than you can see or feel.

An electron approaches a double slit in a barrier and exits from the other side.

A detector on the other side detects the position of the electron and reports it to a computer that builds up a picture of where the electrons are falling.

The picture is equivalent to that of an extended wave of a specific frequency having passed through the slit.

Feel free to explain this to us using the "real" properties of everyday "real" objects.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
Empty space is known to be full of virtual particles that manifest from the energy available in empty space itself.
This is NOT known and NOT experimentally proved: AND PLEASE do not quote the Casimir Effect as proof: It is NOT!

This energy density has been computed,
incorrectly yes.
and measured
Each wave does have energy fluctuations but this do NOT mean that the vacuum has energy!.
Small quantities of real energy have been extracted from the vacuum of empty space.
Extracted to be dissipated? When and where?

"Thus, to assume that within free space (no boundary conditions) wave-fronts are able to move in a non-parallel fashion is wrong." - iohanf


If there are particles, then there is scattering.

There are NO particles in free-space: Both light and matter consist op EM-wave energy: Therefore a free photon (or electron) moving through free space is a coherent-wave with parallel wave-fronts modelled by Maxwell's equations.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
I c is finite and charge differentials can be created and destroyed, it follows that there is a charge force carrier that moves through space that is also quantized.
Pure speculation!

Maxwel's view simply doesn't work.
JFP: "Both a photon-wave and an electron-wave are coherent waves in free space, modelled by Maxwell's wave-equation.."


Arguing Maxwell's view is pointless.

Then why when I use E^2=(p^2*c^2) (m*c^2)^2 as a template (the same template as used by Klein-Gordon and Dirac) do I obtain Maxwell's equation for the potential of light for both a photon moving with speed c (when setting m=0) and an electron (moving with speed v lower than c) when setting m=m(e)? I need not fudge the mathematics to get this, like Dirac has done to get his equation.

You might as well argue that the world is flat.
I am not doing this: Neither am I arguing that the world is the centre of the universe as you seem to be doing.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2012
lim(x->0) (1/x - 1/x) = 0

"Maths which subtract infinity from infinity is obviously useless." - johanf

Clearly not.

You have just proved my point: This equation is meaningless according to the rules of calculus. It is called mathematical fudging. No wonder qunatum-field theory is Voodoo!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
"If they are based on concepts which are physically impossible, they are nonsense" - johanf


But you are not familiar with the properties of things that are smaller than you can see or feel.
And YOU claim that YOU are? Have you got supernatural powers which I do not have?

An electron approaches a double slit in a barrier and exits from the other side.


Correction: A coherent electron-wave with parallel wave-fronts approaches the double slit which the wave encounters as new boundary conditions. As all waves do, and have always done, the electron-wave morphs to adapt to the new boundary conditions, so that its parallel wave fronts each move simultaneously through both sllits. The wave-fronts emanating on the other side intefere. (argument to be continued in next post)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
A detector on the other side detects the position of the electron and reports it to a computer that builds up a picture of where the electrons are falling.


In order to detect the electron, it has to be stopped in its tracks: The detctor represents new boundary conditions which do just that. When an electron becomes a stationary-wave its dimensions becomes smaller than when it is a coherently-moving wave with parallel wave-fronts. Therefore it has to collapse and is thus observed as a spot. A stupid experimenter then concludes that the electron has been a "particle" while it moved through the slits: "Zere iss a condratiction here". How stupid can one be?

The picture is equivalent to that of an extended wave of a specific frequency having passed through the slit.


This is so since this is exactly what has happenned for each electron-wave!(to be continued in next positing)

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
Feel free to explain this to us using the "real" properties of everyday "real" objects.


As already explained above, each electron is a coherent wave with parallel wave-fronts which forms a diffracted intensity distribution on the other side. In order to detect the electron, it has to resonate with the detector on the other side. This IS how everyday "real" waves are detected in a "real" manner. Think about radio-waves.

When a diffracted electron-wave reaches the detector it has a better probability to resonate at a position where its intensity is the highest: Thus, after many identically diffracted electron-waves resonated and collapsed into the detector, the identical intensity distribution for each diffrcated electron-wave is generated by the spots within the detector.

Thus, the electron-waves act like "real" waves are supposed to act: NO Voodoo needed! Feel free to explain why you rather believe in Black Magic!
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
Excellent. Then your view is that the electron is an extended wave.

"The wave-fronts emanating on the other side intefere." - Johanfprins

We now immediately have a problem because your space and my space are not the same depending on our relative motion.

But lets ignore that for a moment because there is a bigger problem.

The wave is an extended object that can set to be as wide as we like by moving the detector farther away from the slit.

But when the electron is absorbed by an atom it is absorbed as a whole electron, not some fragment of a wave. And when it is absorbed no portion of the wave front remains to be absorbed by any other atoms.

The conversion from extended object to localized electron must be instantaneous for if it is not it would be possible for 2 or more atoms to interact with the same electron wave front within the time window for the conversion.

So by what physical mechanism does a extended physical object vanish through all of space at the same time. Cont.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
Through what physical mechanism is there synchronization? Or are you good with violating the speed of light?

And of course there is another problem with synchronization, and that is that depending on my speed relative to yours, two events that are instantaneous in your reference frame will not necessarily be in mine.

Instantaneous for you is not instantaneous for me.

On the other hand you might think that the electron is slowly absorbed into the atom piece meal. If that is the case, then it isn't fundamental since you can have a fraction of an electron hanging around at times.

Another problem with this view is that using mirrors and absorbing materials you can shape the electron's wave function into an arbitrary shape.

How does the atom know where it all is?
How does the electron manage to keep itself intact when it's wave function can be arbitrarily shaped?

VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
"Thus, the electron-waves act like "real" waves are supposed to act: NO Voodoo needed!" - Johanfprins

I can scoop out a fraction of a "real wave" and keep it in a jar.

If I can do the same thing with an electron wave, then how is an electron fundamental and integral?

On the other hand if the electron then zips off to cosmic mongolia after I capture part of it, then when it is captured by an atom there, does my fraction of the electron in the box vanish?

Through what mechanism does it do so?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
The wave is an extended object that can set to be as wide as we like by moving the detector farther away from the slit.
Correct!

But when the electron is absorbed by an atom it is absorbed as a whole electron, not some fragment of a wave.
Again correct.

The conversion from extended object to localized electron must be instantaneous for if it is not it would be possible for 2 or more atoms to interact with the same electron wave front within the time window for the conversion.


Correct! It MUST be instantaneous: This is where "quantum jumps" come from.

So by what physical mechanism does a extended physical object vanish through all of space at the same time.


This requires a very long post involving concepts like entanglement and timeless space, as found within a Black Hole, and also within the mass-intensity of a stationary electron-wave.

I am trying to publish a manuscript on this but cannot get it past the Orwellian swine in control on physics.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
Claptrap. The equation sums to zero.

If it didn't then all of calculus would be wrong.

"This equation is meaningless according to the rules of calculus." - Johanfprins

Is that your claim as well?

VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
"This requires a very long post involving concepts like entanglement and timeless space, as found within a Black Hole, and also within the mass-intensity of a stationary electron-wave." - Johanfprins

Timeless space? What happened to your requirement that explanations be real?

Feel free to post an overview of your thoughts on the means by which an extended wave front is instantaneously converted to an electron - whatever that is.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
Through what physical mechanism is there synchronization? Or are you good with violating the speed of light?
Entanglement.

You are asking relevant questions which require long answers backed by mathematics. I am impreesed. I will have to be selective.

On the other hand you might think that the electron is slowly absorbed into the atom piece meal.
I do not: This is not possible.

Another problem with this view is that using mirrors and absorbing materials you can shape the electron's wave function into an arbitrary shape.
You obviously can since an electron can be an extended wave that fills a block of metal.

How does the electron manage to keep itself intact when it's wave function can be arbitrarily shaped?
The electron-wave is self-entangled and is thus in instantaneous contact with itself throughout its whole volume. Time does not exist within the volume of the electron wave. This is why, when stationary, it has a complex wave-amplitude.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
I can scoop out a fraction of a "real wave" and keep it in a jar.
As long as the wave, when it is a matter-wave, has more energy than an electron-wave, a proton-wave etc., and as long as a light-wave has more energy than that of a photon-wave.

If I can do the same thing with an electron wave, then how is an electron fundamental and integral?
You cannot do this with an electron-wave just as you cannot "scoop" a part of a photon-wave. The latter is the lowest energy that a coherent light-wave can have.

On the other hand if the electron then zips off to cosmic mongolia after I capture part of it, then when it is captured by an atom there, does my fraction of the electron in the box vanish?


Irrelevant nonsensical argument. Although an electron wave can move as two separate parts through the diffrcation slits, these parts are entangled and remains entangled. You cannot disentangle them as in the case where each part can become a separate single-electron wave.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2012
Claptrap. The equation sums to zero.
You do not have to take the limit to obtain zero. Thus taking the limit is nonsense. Mathematics is a language and any language can be iused to generate paradoxes. To sy that such a paradox is real since it can be expressed within mathematical format is very stupid!

If it didn't then all of calculus would be wrong.
In calculus you NEED to take the limit to obtain a physically realistic answer: In your expression you do not need to take the limit. AS long as X is not equal to zero the difference will be zero: However, In the limit each term goes to infinity so that each term becomes undefined. To argue that by taking the limit so that you can substract infinity from infinity is absurd mathematical Voddo: Just like renormalisation is absurd in QED.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2012
What happened to your requirement that explanations be real?
If you have a universe without any kinetic energy, time cannot exist: Such a universe must be a timeless space. It will also have absolute zero temperature and zero entropy. This follows directly from thermodynamics!

Feel free to post an overview of your thoughts on the means by which an extended wave front is instantaneously converted to an electron - whatever that is.
Post your explanation why this is only possible when you interpret the wave-intensity as a probability distribution. Whatever the correct interpretation is, the experimental observations can only be explained by concluding that the wave's intensity MUST collapse instantaneously. When assuming that the wave has an energy-intensity that collapses (or inflates) instantaneously, less Voodoo is produced than assuming a probability distribution. It also supports Guth' s inflation.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
I sympathize. However you have provided no physical means by which this is possible.

"The electron-wave is self-entangled and is thus in instantaneous contact with itself throughout its whole volume" - Johanfprins

The phrase "self-entangled" is just a place holder for what is really happening. And if an electron is just a wave as you say then there are no gears in place that allow it to collect itself into a nicely coordinated and synchronized whole as it is absorbed by an atom.

What is the internal mechanism by which this is done?
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
Photons can have arbitrarily low energies.

"You cannot do this with an electron-wave just as you cannot "scoop" a part of a photon-wave. The latter is the lowest energy that a coherent light-wave can have." - Johanfprins

And if photons are just waves, then what is the internal mechanism that is preventing me from putting some in a reflective box, and taking it home?

Your answer should be that I can do this and I can keep it in the box until the photon proper is absorbed in which case the portion of it in my box just vanishes by decoherence.

But if I had something in the box, then how was it's energy instantly moved somewhere else at speeds > c?

If your claim is that I can't have a photon fragment in a box, then that disagrees with what we know about quantum states.

I can for example construct a photon wave puffer by trapping a photon in a reflective box that has a hole in it. There will be a periodic probability that the photon will escape through the hole and that CONT
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
probability wave can have a reflective box erected around it, and then it can be put in your pocket and carried back to your bedroom for safe keeping.

VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
What you objected to was the idea of a probability wave vanishing to zero all over space, without a physical mechanism.

I sympathize.

What you have replaced the concept with is a real wave that for some reason can't be subdivided, and which vanishes instantly over all of space without a mechanism for doing so.

I fail to see the improvement.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
Not necessarily...

It is possible that some portion of the electron is integrated into the atom and the remainder is manufactured, the bits of the electron that aren't integrated are left in the zero point froth that constitutes the vacuum.

"Whatever the correct interpretation is, the experimental observations can only be explained by concluding that the wave's intensity MUST collapse instantaneously." - Johanfprins
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
I have none.

"Post your explanation why this is only possible when you interpret the wave-intensity as a probability distribution." - Johanfprins

The only thing I can add is that the absorbing body is extended as well, and hence overlaps the particle being absorbed at least partially.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
I sympathize. However you have provided no physical means by which this is possible.
Neither have you for the collapse of a "probability-wave". Do you agree that there must be a collapse of the wave for an electron or a photon to be absorbed. YES OR NO?

I will proceed after you have answered this question.
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
I am not obligated to do so since I am not making any claim regarding that theory.

You are.

"Neither have you for the collapse of a "probability-wave." - Johanfprins

So the obligation is upon you to provide a reason why your brand of magical wave function collapse is any different than the standard one.

I have asked you several questions. So far, you haven't answered any of them other than claiming that your wave function collapses because it is self-entangled.

I sympathize with your view, but what is the physical mechanism behind this instantaneous - can vanish in an instant - no time is flowing - through the entire universe - absolutely fantabulous series of claims?

VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
I do not agree that it is a "must" as there is another possibility that I mentioned above. That possibility is the formation of a suitable electron wave from the vacuum during absorption.

The problem with this view however is that the remains of the initial electron are free to roam around the universe in a "virtual" state. How does the universe known that the remains are "virtual"?

Without some form of accounting there would be nothing preventing an electron from spontaneously appearing from nothing without a corresponding anti-electron.

I know of no evidence for spontaneous particle production like this.

"Do you agree that there must be a collapse of the wave for an electron or a photon to be absorbed. YES OR NO?" - Johanfprins
cdt
not rated yet Sep 16, 2012
Let me just pipe in to say that it's nice to see a disagreement being hashed out respectfully in this forum. It makes it possible to focus on what is said without having to subtract out hostility.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2012
Those worthy of respect will receive respect.

Those worthy of public execution will receive none.

"Let me just pipe in to say that it's nice to see a disagreement being hashed out respectfully in this forum" - cdt
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2012
I only noticed now that you have tried to answer my question
do not agree that it is a "must" as there is another possibility that I mentioned above. That possibility is the formation of a suitable electron wave from the vacuum during absorption.
This is of course nonsense.

"Do you agree that there must be a collapse of the wave for an electron or a photon to be absorbed. YES OR NO?" - Johanfprins

You have not yet answered my question: Whatever your interpretation of what an electron-wave is, do you agree that a free electron moving through space can diffract and that therefore it must have a wave-property that allows it to this? Do you agree that when observing the position of the electron with a detector this electron-wave MUST collapse! YES or NO?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.