Gaussian Functions In Quantum Mechanics

I am a quantum mechanics junky. So I was wondering if anyone here knows, or has even remotely heard of, the following interpretation of the actuality of a wavefunction:

1. Particles can get "hit" by Gaussian Functions over a very long time.

2. There are many particles in a macroscopic system, so the probability of a hit occuring is drastically greater

3. These particles are entangled to their macroscopic object.

4. Hence, if even 1 particle gets hit, the whole system should change 'cause it's entangled.

5. I think this has something to do with a GRW scheme, which I know very little about.

So my question: does this validly solve the "Schrodinger's Cat" dillema mathematically, and has anyone else heard of this?

That there is a mathematically quantifiable probability that suddenly a particle will jump from one state to another all of the sudden, which, taken individually, is a very rare occurence. Have you heard of it?

Gaussian peaks amplify the classical quantum probabilities for the evolution of the wavefunction. Hope this makes more sense.

Well I guess if there is anything thermo dynamics has taught us, it is that anything is possible, it is just very unlikely... =) .. haven't had any courses on quantum mechanics though..

Thanks everyone. I guess I'll just wait, and try to figure it out myself some day.

 That's the "classical" Copenhagen Interpretation, at least ;)

An experimentally verified result for what? Are you talking about the famous double-slit experiment?

I'm not sure if I know what you mean, but I think the answer here is that according to the traditional interpretation, the wavefunction ordinarily collapses once it was measured, but when it is not observed it follows deterministic equations for the evolution of the wavefunction. Is this what you meant?

This specific area is dealt with by quantum electrodynamics (QED). What we can do is swap information about it's momentum for its location, but the improved accuracy of learning one of those diminishes the accuracy of the other measurement. What are you getting at here?

I'm probably not qualified ;). You can look up anything I say and find that it matches with known facts just fine, except for what I am speculating about here. The match-up should be in a 1-1 correspondence, I take this stuff seriously. To give personal information is to be judged and biased.

Well I've been studying quantum mechanics, etc. seriously for only about 4 yrs., so of course I'm an amateur.

If you are reffering to Hamiltonian Operators, and the Schrodinger Evolution of wavefunctions, I have studied those, but I don't exactly know how to convert something to a less abstract form by taking the trace.

Ah, eigenfunctions. Yummy. First, get rid of the Copenhagen interpretation and start over. Are you talking of the bra and ket operators? Also, did somebody here invite me to join this group?

Right, the eigenfunctions are of course directly related with the Schrodinger equation.

Get rid of the Copenhagen Interpretation and start over? Well, I won't be saying that yet, that's pretty bold I must admit.

So you know about this stuff?

Been studying it since, oh, 1963. Grade 9. Yonks. I have a completely different view of QM than anybody. The squares of the eigenvalues give the energy levels of the quantum particles. However, to get it, you have to use an alternative to Copenhagen. Einstein and Schroedinger both were extremely opposed to Bohr's interpretation and Heisenberg was adamant that everybody had totally taken his postulate completely into left field. There is some unbelievably bizarre stuff in QM. What do you think? QM is a collection of single events. And you cannot have a probability of a single event. You go Copenhagen and you are hooped. What's your take on it?

I have not yet made up my mind. Perhaps the Copenhagen should only be taken as indicative of the observer's state of mind, either that, but I have also considered pilot waves, many worlds, the GRW schemes, and the whole lot basically. I don't know yet.

Aha! It's not only many worlds, it's many universes. What crap! There can only be one universe by definition. The whole thing has gone completely crazy. We have an infinite number of universes with infinite outcomes for an infinite number of events. What a very sad end to physics! First, Copenhagen is crap. (Uhm the interpretation, not the city nor its beautiful people). Second, please define the observer, and third, the boundary conditions are physically and mathematically unsound. From this theoretical foundation we are supposed to get anything that makes any sense? Small wonder Einstein was pissed.

Well, first we have to answer the question, what exactly is psi? Since it in some way relates to a single event then it can't be a probability state or the square root of a probability state. It is a scalar potential field of some sort. Probability states do have some merit, particularly in explaining tunneling, but you end up with nonsense later on. So, if we are going to start over, then I suggest we define psi. It is unitless, may be positive or negative, could extend everywhere or could have definite boundaries. Also, it describes, in some as yet unknown way (starting over here) the quantum state of an electron. We have to end up with solutions that describe the quantum states of the emission or absorption spectra of Hydrogen.  The applied mathematicians have a great trick; they just say psi is a potential of some sort and leave it at that. If you ask, potential of what? They all look at you like you are mad and turn the other way. Hey, it works.

I agree.

I don't think bbrout is dismissing quantum mechanics entirely, just some interpretations of it.