The quantum microscopic world view: I promised an explanation of quantum theory in two steps. In the first step Schrödinger’s wave is something that moves in familiar threedimensional space. You could almost believe, as Schrödinger himself did at first, that there is something real waving that corresponds to the fundamental stuff of matter (electrons, quarks, photons, . . . ), something like Maxwell’s dynamical field of electromagnetism that in the old theory carries what we perceive as light. But alas, the Schrödinger wave function is not even an ordinary number. Its symbol stands for a whole array of numbers, including an amplitude at each point whose square is the probability that a detector will click there, and components in a set of “internal dimensions” that are new features of Nature. Worse, the Schrödinger wave for two detectors moves in six spatial dimensions, three to locate each detector. Adding more detectors requires more dimensions. Whatever it is, the Schrödinger wave is not a “real” field like Maxwell’s.
The quantum microscopic world view: I promised an explanation of quantum theory in two steps. In the first step Schrödinger’s wave is something that moves in familiar threedimensional space. You could almost believe, as Schrödinger himself did at first, that there is something real waving that corresponds to the fundamental stuff of matter (electrons, quarks, photons, . . . ), something like Maxwell’s dynamical field of electromagnetism that in the old theory carries what we perceive as light. But alas, the Schrödinger wave function is not even an ordinary number. Its symbol stands for a whole array of numbers, including an amplitude at each point whose square is the probability that a detector will click there, and components in a set of “internal dimensions” that are new features of Nature. Worse, the Schrödinger wave for two detectors moves in six spatial dimensions, three to locate each detector. Adding more detectors requires more dimensions. Whatever it is, the Schrödinger wave is not a “real” field like Maxwell’s.
Quantum mechanics has always presented a problem for scientific realists. For it does not seem to offer a coherent picture of the world. I think it does, and that there is a viable quantum mechanical model of reality. But it cannot be constructed, given the continuity constraints that we usually place on realistic models. To be a quantum mechanical realist, one has to be willing to accept that there are two fundamentally different kinds of processes occurring in nature: continuous, but quantum mechanically indeterminate, energy transfer processes and discontinuous, but spatially extended, changes of state. The unwillingness of philosophers to accept that there is such a distinction has caused many of them to doubt the reality of Schrödinger waves, and the processes of their generation and collapse. I am fully aware that I am treading on well-trodden territory, and that the technical difficulties that must be faced by anyone who is not a specialist in the field are immense. Nevertheless, I think there is a fairly clear metaphysical position on these issues derivable from the kind of essentialist realism outlined in the previous chapter, and I ask readers to bear with me. First, realism about Schrödinger waves requires the belief that particles are always transmitted as quantum mechanically indeterminate waves, but always act as classically determinate particles on whatever absorbs them. The probability of absorption by a given absorbing object (e.g. measuring instrument) at a given location is determined by the value of the Ψ-function at this point.
Quantum mechanics provides us most fundamental descriptions of our most early universe, but there is a long-standing debate amongst theoretical physicists about what all these mathematics really mean in real world? The present three-dimensional (3D) universe, we humans experience daily since our birth, is probably just one of an enormous numbers of essentially classical worlds, and all quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsions that prevented many universes (Multiverse) from having identical physical configurations like ours. Probabilities arise only because of our human ignorance as to which in our world an observer occupies a position in space time. This picture is all that is needed to explain bizarre quantum effects such as particles that can tunnel through solid barriers and wave behavior in double-slit experiments or in a warm hole. Our many-interacting-universes approach hinges on our assumption that interactions between deterministically evolving worlds cause all quantum effects. Each world is simply the position of particles in three-dimensional space time, and each would evolve according to Newton’s laws, if there were no inter world interactions. A surprising feature of human approach was that the formulation contains nothing that corresponds to the mysterious quantum wave functions, except in the formal mathematical limit in which the number of worlds becomes infinitely large. Conversely, Newtonian mechanics corresponds to the opposite limit of just one world. Thus, our approach should incorporate both classical and quantum theory. As few as two interacting worlds can result in quantum like effects, such as tunneling through a barrier. Many interacting worlds theory (MIW) explains that rather than standing apart, an infinite number of universes in the early time shared the same space and time as ours. They show that the theory can explain quantum mechanical effects while leaving open the choice of theory to explain the universe at large scales. This is a fascinating new variant of multiverse theory that, in a sense, creates not just a doppelganger of everyone but an infinite number of them all overlaying each other in the same space and time. The fine tuning of parameters required to reproduce our present day universe suggests that our universe may simply be a region within an eternally inflating super-region. Many other regions beyond our observable universe might have existed in earlier times with each such universe governed by a different set of physical parameters and laws. Collision between these regions, if they occurred, should have left signatures of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) but have not been seen yet. We assess different mechanisms for this residual emission and conclude that although there is a 30% probability that noise fluctuations may cause foregrounds to fall within 3σ of the excess, there is less than a 0.5% probability that foregrounds can explain all the excess. A plausible explanation is that the collision of our universe with an alternate universe, whose baryon to photon ratio is a factor of ∼ 4500 larger than ours, could produce enhanced Hydrogen Paschen-series emission at the epoch of recombination. Future spectral mapping and deeper observations at 100 and 217 GHz are needed to mitigate systematics arising from unknown galactic foregrounds and to confirm this unusual hypothesis. After careful analysis of the spectrum of the CMB, Chary et al. found a signal that was about 4500x brighter than it should have been, based on the number of protons and electrons. Scientists believe that this existed in the very early universe. Indeed, this particular signal, an emission line that arose from the formation of atoms during the era of recombination is more consistent with a universe whose ratio of matter particles to photons is about 65x greater than our own. There is a 30% chance that this mysterious signal is just noise, and not really, a signal at all; however, it is also possible that it is real, and exists as a parallel universe. Keywords : Quantum mechanics, multiverse, Newtonian mechanics Cite this Article Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya, et al . Schrodinger Cat's Experiment's Interpretation and Parallel Universe or Multiple Universes. Research and Reviews: Journal of Space Science and Technology. 2016; 5(1): 35–52p.
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].
Let us return from optics to mechanics and explore the analogy to its fullest extent. In optics the old system of mechanics corresponds to intellectually operating with isolated mutually independent light rays. The new undulatory mechanics corresponds to the wave theory of light . Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel lecture , 1933 In this chapter we shall see that electromagnetic waves and electrons feature a number of common properties under conditions of spatial confinement. Simple and familiar problems from introductory quantum mechanics and textbook wave optics are recalled in this chapter to emphasize the basic features of waves in spatially inhomogeneous media. Herewith we make a first step towards understanding the properties of electrons and electromagnetic waves in nanostructures and notice that these properties in many instances are counterparts. Different formulas and statements of this chapter can be found in handbooks on quantum mechanics and wave optics. A few textbooks on quantum mechanics do consider analogies of propagation and reflection phenomena in wave optics with those in wave mechanics. Isomorphism of the Schrödinger and Helmholtz equations In Chapter 2 we discussed that an electron in quantum mechanics is described by the wave function, the square of its absolute value giving the probability of finding an electron at a specific point in space. This function satisfies the Schrödinger equation (2.56) which is the second-order differential equation with respect to space and the first-order differential equation with respect to time.
In our view nature cannot be continuous: in quantum mechanics things come in whole pieces, and a measurement gives one outcome that cannot be unmade. We propose a discrete board of time events: Nodes of whole numbers, each speaking to six neighbours once per tick, one step per tick, and a gravity content setting each Node's rate; a click is a detector's reading of the board. Each tick a Node adds its neighbours' weighted numbers, subtracts its number of one tick before, divides once, remainder kept: every step runs back. From that rule we find one bound on everything on the board, no body outrunning light and, given a two-way reading by light, the known addition of speeds, clocks slowed near matter, moving clocks slowed in the known form at first order, light slowed near matter and, in form, bent and delayed, and a board time that no body reads. None of it gives time a direction; that comes only at a click: a detector takes one whole piece, records it, wipes the rest, one step per tick. With the record the board runs back through the click; without it the backward run fails where the wiping reached, no faster than one step per tick. On the board, the direction of time is the ledger of what was measured: a place, a speed, a size. One run shows it. We propose nature's arrow appears this way. Everything here is in the public repository and can be run by anyone.