Difference between revisions of "TFNR - Probability of outcomes of observations vs compositional statistical representation of quantum states"
(Created page with "Let's take back what was said above and try to clarify further. In Quantum Mechanics, extensive use is made of probabilities, because QM is not a descriptive theory, but rat...") |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 17:34, 26 June 2024
Let's take back what was said above and try to clarify further.
In Quantum Mechanics, extensive use is made of probabilities, because QM is not a descriptive theory, but rather a methodology for predicting the results of observations, measurements and experiments. Probability of the occurrence of events, of the occurrence of correlations between events, and so on. If we want to try to find explanations for the oddities of QM we must make hypotheses about the phenomena, about the forms, about what can actually happen.
We must contradict the first commandment of the QM: "shut up and calculate!".
As described above for superposition, we must imagine the actual situation of the quantum objects that produce those probabilities of observation outcomes. And precisely superposition allows us to hypothesize that at the underlying level (what we do not see, since we can only see the results of the observations, and not what really happens to quantum objects, inside them, in their interactions with the Field and with the other Structures) we must not express the phenomena through probability, but we must describe the objects and their dynamics through composition indicators, also between 0 and 1, but conceptually different instruments.
It is different to say that the probability of observing the Spin Up quantum state is 0.3, it is different to say that the object that produces that observational outcome, at a particular instant in an evolutionary dynamic for 0.3 (30%) of its volume has an orientation compatible with the Spin up quantum state. This means that in case of observation / measurement at that instant, 0.3 of the volume of the electron will contribute to the production of the overall Spin of the InfoStructure for a Spin up. The complement to 1, the rest of the volume of the electron (0.7) will contribute to the production of a Spin down. In this case, the Spin will be down.
We will then see how the act of measuring produces the alignment of the Spin of all the event points of the Structure to the overall Spin (thus producing the infamous collapse of the wave function). In short, the temporal evolution of the spatial distribution of the quantum states of the single point events in the volume that supports the Structure (except for the ever-present indeterminacy) determines the complessive quantum state of the quantum object.
Links to the tables of contents of TFNR Paper
