Gaussian Functions In Quantum Mechanics

Thank you. I accept the rejection of determinism. QM is a full-on theory and is very close to being a closed theory along with gravity and electro-magnetism. Determinism belongs to a world of sequential actions, or events. We experience this in our everyday lives. But the quantum is not what we see in our everyday world unless, perhaps, it is on such a large scale we cannot see it in some obvious way. The other two theories are based on a harmonic equation for EM and tensor field equations for gravity. We experience these and understand them. QM, on the other hand, is not and therefore is much more subtle in understanding it. Occam's razor is incredibly sharp. Please be careful of your assumptions. I have only rejected determinism in the world of the quantum, not the quantum itself.

What means this question mark? Rainbow, shy are you saying I am rejecting QM? 

 I don't understand your position, RainbowRising; I'm a little confused presentely....

OK, I guess what I am asking is, do you equate the rejection of determinism with a rejection of QM? Or do you equate a rejection of a probability interpretation to psi to a rejection of QM? Or am I not being clear and you have no idea what I am asking?

Are you asking this of me or of Rainbow?

Nice to have you here, bb.   I just knew you would liven up this group.

In re alternatives to Copenhagen, has anybody read David Albert's book, "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" ?  He has quite a bit to say about various alternatives to Copenhagen -- not just Everett (many worlds ... er universes  ) but also a chapter (7) on Bohm's Theory.

Quoting from page 135 of the book (I can't make this stuff up myself) "What the physical world consists of besides particles and besides force fields, on this theory, is (oddly) wave functions [...] conceived of as genuinely physical things, as something somewhat like force fields (but not quite), and anyway as something quite distinct from particles."

Any takers ?

No, I'm not a "taker" like that. Name one book about this stuff and I could probably name 2 or 3 that I've read. I've read this stuff a lot, and recently I've come across the GRW schemes from at least two sources. Sadly, everyone here is eager to talk about every quantum mechanical interpretation but the one I suggested. I'm a little bummed out, but it's not anyone's fault here. I didn't post this expecting my wishes to be fulfilled.

That's the spirit!  

Yes, I suppose so. It's almost essential to feel that way. Maybe we can start another forum about QM in general? That would bring a lot more participation perhaps.

If you ask me, most physicists I know just go for the Copenhagen Interpretation, most students don't really appear to care or even know the official names, and most lay people say (I get this a lot):

1. What does QM do that's useful?

2. Do you actually believe this stuff? (as if I am insane)

3. Quantum effects have not been observed macroscopically, and psi isn't actually real, it's just a math trick. (a more educated response)

What are your experiences?

MWI has been growing in popularity for a while, no thanks to tons of scifi nonsense.

oh dear, I was asking it of you. sorry. Three way conversation going here. I am a little confused. I was attempting to discuss a definition of psi. I believe Gaussian operators depend on a probability function?

I appreciate the discussion about the nature of psi in general, I was just looking for something more specific. I hardly know anything about Gaussian operators, hence my question.

By: JOHNSON, HOWARD. EDN, 10/8/2009, Vol. 54 Issue 19, p13-13, 1p; Abstract The article focuses on a Gaussianstep, which refers to the time integral of a Gaussian bell-shaped curve. According to the author, the Gaussian step looks like a digital signal. The Central Limit Theorem states that the step response tends to be Gaussian as the number of effects nears infinity. This applies to digital devices because they are made up of performance-limiting stages that cascade in series with similar bandwidths.; (AN 44706075)

Gaussian integrals I think are what you are looking for. They are involved in quark research. Hey, follow that quark. Yummy stuff. Born did a very famous paper using Gaussian integrals to try to get Heisenberg out of Schroedinger. Didn't work too good he's out by 2 pi. But hey, at least he's within an order of magnitude, so he was close. I have three papers I've downloaded on Gaussian operators I will send ya. (I would take them with a major grain of salt.)

I'll message ya.

By the way, it's obvious, psi is a conserved scalar field.

Excellent, thank you. Sorry, who is this Born (I hope I'm not missing something obvious)?

Max Born, worked with Heisenberg (who was actually Born's assistant) on the matrix algebra formulation of quantum mechanics.  Finally got the Nobel Prize for this work in 1954 (long after Heisenberg got it in the 30's).

Thanks. They all get the Nobel Prizes late, don't they?

we have to get latex on this thing. Can't attach files either. Is there a way to upload files to my profile and then others can download them?