The eoptcmru effect

The eoptcmru process is carried out as follows:

1. A new word is made up. A random selection of letters is acceptable.
2. A brief account is written up, including the new word and in such a way that the new word is given meaning.
3. The process is posted on the internet.

( You have just seen the first example of the eoptcmru process the word being "eoptcmru" and the process being defined by steps one to three above)

The eoptcmru effect happens when the new word is found by means of a Google search.


P.S. Most of the other stuff in this blog is about to go through a major edit.

WHO SAID QUANTUM THEORY SHOULD BE WEIRD?

            WHO SAID QUANTUM THEORY SHOULD BE WEIRD?

                  

  One doesn’t need to venture far into quantum theory to see that certain conclusions have been reached such as “quantum theory is useful” and “quantum theory is weird”.

 The theory is certainly useful but is not as weird as it’s made out to be. Much of the weirdness comes about because certain mistakes have been made when interpreting the theory.

  Consider the most famous example of quantum weirdness, Schrodingers cat. It’s often written that by putting a cat in a certain type of box along with certain bits of equipment, a situation can be created where the cat goes into a superposition state of being both alive and dead at the same time. That is not just weird, it’s plain silly.

 To resolve this paradox and other examples of quantum weirdness is simple. It just needs an improvement of quantum theory by taking into account and correcting the mistakes.  

Mistake number one.  Not using general knowledge and common sense.

  Schrodinger knew, as all of us should know, that the cat cannot go into the weird superposition state. To show this we just need to use general knowledge and common sense. If more of the same is done when considering the whole thought experiment we can start to resolve the paradox.

 Mistake number two.  Forgetting the importance of observations

 All physics models and theories are informed by observations and just as importantly they must conform to observations. If any models or theories are to gain credibility then it must be possible, even if just in principle, to gain empirical evidence to back up those models and theories.

 Schrodingers experiment can provide no empirical evidence whatsoever that the atom and the cat can each go into a superposition state. This is because the experimental design is such that it does not allow any relevant observations to be made during the time that the lid of the box is closed and its contents shielded from outside influences.

Mistake number three.  Forgetting that thought experiments may be useful, but only if the findings made by use of those experiments can be extrapolated and applied to the real world.

 Observations can be made but only before the box is closed and after it’s opened. These observations can be analysed using different areas of knowledge, such as physics and forensic science, to give reasonable descriptions of the likely happenings within the box whilst it’s closed. By conforming to the observations all viable descriptions would conform to common sense. The observations would give no indication at all that superposition occurs.

In summary it can be stated that the concept of the cat going into a superposition state is unfounded because the thought experiment is flawed and not based on sound evidence or reasoning.

Schrodingers experiment is flawed because:

·        The weird predictions do not conform to common sense.

·        The weird predictions can be given no credibility because it’s impossible to gain empirical evidence to back up those predictions. The evidence that can be gained indicates that superposition does not occur.

·        The weird predictions belong in the imaginary isolated world of the thought experiment only and have no relevance to the real observable world.

The time is long overdue to forget the cat  Despite this some physicists have continued to explore the concept of quantum superpositions.

 

Mistake number four. Accepting concepts that are contradictory or inadequately defined                           

In recent years several superposition states have been reported in real experiments. These include:

·        A current that can flow clockwise and anticlockwise at the same time.

·        A macroscopic metal structure that can vibrate when it’s not vibrating.

 These are descriptions of weird situations and they need clarification before they can be taken seriously. Consider the superposition state where it has been suggested that:

·        A particle can be moving to the right whilst it’s moving to the left.

  To get clarification about this we could consider suitable questions like those below:

·        Does “moving to the right” mean that the particle is moving to the right only and in no other direction?

·        Does “moving to the left” mean that the particle is moving to the left only and no other direction?

 If both questions are answered with a “yes” it confirms that the original statement is describing an impossible situation.

If both questions are answered with a “no” then further clarification is needed to explain what exactly is meant by “moving to the right” and “moving to the left.”

 Whatever the answers may be questions of the type above, and if necessary more probing questions, reveal that descriptions of quantum superposition states as found in many different publications are descriptions which are contradictory and which describe events which are impossible in the real world.

 Unless the descriptions can be clarified so that they make sense they should not be considered as being specific enough to warrant attention.  Studies become meaningless if we are unable to describe without ambiguity and without contradiction what it is that’s being studied.

It can be stated that reported quantum superposition states do not make sense

Descriptions of quantum superposition states as given in many publications fail because:

·        The descriptions lack the detail necessary for them to make sense.

·        The descriptions refer to concurrent different states which are mutually exclusive and impossible.

·        Observations during the proposed superposition periods are necessarily limited and give little justification to the assumption that superpositions occurs.

 This puts a question mark over the existence of quantum superpositions. Could it be that they are not real or could it be that they are real but are not properly defined and understood?

                                     

                    

 Mistake number 5.  Not considering fully the significance of events in classical systems that are analogous to quantum superposition events

 If something can exist in opposite or different states then it can also exist in a middle or an in between state.  An example of a middle state is when a pencil balances on its point in a state of unstable equilibrium. Whilst in the middle state the system can be described as a macroscopic system which is finely, but not necessarily perfectly, balanced.  The pencil may wobble slightly without falling over and by an amount that depends, amongst other things, on the geometry of the pencil.

The middle state is analogous to a quantum superposition state but it is a state that doesn’t need any weird descriptions. Any movement will be in one direction at a time and not in different directions at the same time. The pencil can move between different locations but can’t occupy different locations simultaneously.

 The analogy can be stretched further to include decoherence. In the case of the pencil decoherence occurs when something, for example a slight mechanical disturbance, causes the pencil to fall to a more stable position.

Although such classical analogies may have been considered before it’s surprising that they haven’t been considered more seriously as being closely representative of what actually happens in quantum superposition states. Could it be that quantum superposition states are not weird at all but are examples of middle, or in between states, that can be described by classical physics?

  Consider the cases referred to earlier. Could it be that the current was actually reversing in direction and (magnitude) at a rate that made it seem like it was flowing in different directions simultaneously.  Perhaps the macroscopic metal structure referred to was not in different states at the same time but was moving between those states.

 The above things are certainly worth thinking about and it is hoped that the teams who reported the superposition states will look again at their results to see whether there are alternative interpretations that conform to the observations. Take for example the particle that was reported to be moving in opposite directions at the same time. The reality could be that the particle was vibrating and moving in just one direction at a time. If the vibrations had some resemblance to simple harmonic motion it should be observed that the particle spends most of its time at the ends of the vibration.

(In memory of the cat, or anything else that can live, we can say that the closest it gets to something resembling superposition is when it hovers between life and death. No special box or special apparatus is needed)

Mistake number 6.  Not fully considering the limitations of models as exemplified by the concept of photons moving through space.

 When we describe how light moves we are using a model. The model is informed by everyday observations and by more detailed observations from different areas of study such as geometrical optics.

 In a nutshell it is assumed that after emission each photon travels at the speed of light and in an approximately straight line until it encounter something to interact with, for example, the eye or a dust particle that scatters the photon or an atom that absorbs the photon and then emits a copy of the original photon.

 It is a model that seems to make sense and it is a useful model. But it is a model that has the following major limitation:

Photons cannot have any interactions or be detected directly at empty locations. They interact and are detected only at locations which are suitably occupied.

  In principle the occupied locations where a photon interacts can be plotted as a set of points. Consider an interval when a photon  interaction at one particular location location

 All that is revealed is a set of points

 Whether the photons exist or not is irrelevant for many endeavours in physics