Re: "Quantum mechanics as a result of time broadening of the classical object"

I'd be curious to know how this paper is being received. Has it been published anywhere else besides that webpage? How did you find it?

The reason I'm asking is because he basically says all the same stuff my father has been saying: That the limited view was what was responsible for the paradoxical behavior of our models and the reasons why applications based on those models cause so many unintended side-effects in real systems. But does A.M. Ghorbanzadeh talk about what this means for physics?

The picture he uses in his illustration is a good one. It reminds me of a famous painting that was done before motion pictures were invented. I'll have to search out the name of the artist and the name of the painting...It's of a little dachshund-like dog with very short legs, being taken for a walk on a leash, and its legs are blurred in all running positions at once, conveying the idea of motion; that it's running madly to keep up with its long-legged human. The illustration Ghorbanzadeh uses of a cat in the same place but all different times, is similar: it conveys that "real time" is not static and that any "present" is more than a singularity. To stop time and do a measurement is artificial, so the equations collapse just as a living organism collapses down to physical structure when you "stop time" (fractionate time out of its organization).

Judith

Website address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/
My favorite discussion list (Independent-- Not part of Rosen Enterprises): ***

----- Original Message -----

From: Tim Gwinn

To: ***

Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 6:58 PM

Subject: [ROSEN] "Quantum mechanics as a result of time broadening of the classical object"

Today I have been reading a fascinating new paper on arXiv quant-ph, entitled "Quantum mechanics as a result of time broadening of the classical object" by A.M. Ghorbanzadeh:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411169

The essential idea of the paper is that the author has shown mathematically that the equation describing a quantum particle can be put into a form which appears to indicate that the appropriate interpretation of a quantum entity is as being an entity which is extended in time, both into the past and the future.

The intriguing thing about this is how it provides such a nice explanation for the disparate ways in which quantum particles seem to behave: when not being measured, they appear to behave according to the statistical nature of the wave function - a superposition of possible states; but when they are measured, they are found to be in one specific state. Various notions have been proposed to explain this Jekyll and Hyde behavior, such as the "collapse" postulate, the ensemble interpretations, "many-worlds" interpretations and so on.

This paper proposes, in effect, that our measurements at (what is for us) a single instant of time fails to be appropriate for an entity who's intrinsic measure of "state" requires extension through time. As a result, our measurements capture but an incomplete aspect of the whole. Very loosely, one can think of our measurements as capturing but an infinitesimal slice of the whole - the behavior of that slice is not representative of the behavior of the whole.

Extension through time also is also claimed in this paper to make sense of nonlocality. And the apparent statistical nature of a quantum particles evolution is not statistical per se. It appears to us that way, due to our manner of measurement, but this statistical appearance is rather due to the extension through time: past, present and future all simultaneously (nonlocally) affecting the nature of the particles behavior. I'd say that rather than interpreting the statistical nature of QM as something like an ensemble of particles, this paper argues that it is a single particle which possesses something like an ensemble of temporal influences.

This paper brought to mind Rosen's discussion "Time in General Dynamical Systems", chapter 4.5 in AS. There Rosen shows that the encoding of time will generally vary from dynamical system to dynamical system, and cannot be assumed to match some arbitrary encoding of a "clock time". Also, that each dynamical system will generally possess a unique time differential, dt, unique to that system.

The paper is a fairly mathematical read, although I think the author does a decent job at explicating in text what he derives from the results. I am in no position to fact-check his work, but if it is correct, it is quite interesting. It challenges the commonly held notion of "state", and seems to me would be in keeping with the general results that Rosen laid out regarding the generic relative nature of time and time differentials in dynamical systems.

Regards,

Tim