Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[stella_ku]

thanks guys, very interesting answers...

 

[RealityCheck]

So as to clear up the confusion, God did it.

It's nice that you believe that and all, but um... evidence, please?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's nice that you believe that and all, but um... evidence, please?

 

[Cabal]

RAWR BIBLE RAWR

Pfft, amateur, that's a Biblical concordance, not a Bible

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Pfft, amateur, that's a Biblical concordance, not a I Bible

I never claimed any different. You won't catch me out, ya darn sneaky atheist!

 

[Cabal]

I never claimed any different. You won't catch me out, ya darn sneaky atheist!

You still posted the wrong book

 

[Assyrian]

It has all the right verses, but not necessarily in the right order.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You still posted the wrong book

Surely the 'right' book is whatever book I chose to cite as evidence? Since I chose the concordance, that is therefore the correct book!

Hah, gotcha now!

 

[Cabal]

Surely the 'right' book is whatever book I chose to cite as evidence? Since I chose the concordance, that is therefore the correct book!

Hah, gotcha now!

Ah yes, I forgot that creationist double standard, how silly of me.

Well played sir!

 

[Tinker Grey]

Having owned bunches of those things, I suspect that is a Bible with a concordance.

[/buzzkill]

 

[Maxwell511]

I do understand that electrons do not exist except in certain "probabilities"
But I thought that the Schrodinger Wave Function applied more to individual subatomic particles.

You can't have individual wave equations with the "particles" in a multiple "particle" system. There are assumptions to solve help solve equations (such the orbitals in atoms) that imagine this however they are not "correct" in the sense that they are not under the theory "true".

But you cannot be "not an observer"

Define observer.

"right"?
Can you qualify that statement?
Potential paradox, yes, but not "right"?
I R confused now.

Newton's law of gravity was accurate but not right. I hope that explains what I meant.

The Cat experiment is designed to demonstrate that, although we can predict a PROBABILITY of decay (in this specific instance), we cannot predict exactly WHEN that decay will occur.
Therefore, without an observer, we will never know if the Cat is dead until we open the box.
Anything beyond that may be metaphysics.

It is NOT designed to demonstrate being in two physical locations at the same time. It's all about the uncertainty of the precise moment of the decay rate (minus the possible metaphysics)

You are still misunderstanding the experiment. QM is just maths, must of the maths is about have wave functions evolve. State reduction is where metaphysics may come in.

Alternatively I may be misunderstanding what you are saying and you may be claiming the cat is an observer. In that case why is the cat an observer? To attempt to define observer with our current understanding is also a massive leap into metaphysics.

Question for you- Do you subscribe to the "Many Worlds" hypothesis? (yes, this is, from my pov, important)

I think the "Many-Worlds" is the most logical deduction for our current understanding of QM. However I also think that our current understanding of QM is wrong.

BTW, really looking forward to WC's input and Cabal's input as well. (no offense Max )

Why would I take offense? Personally I would like to be shown wrong in my thinking or understanding if they were incorrect. Again I apologise for just saying "you are wrong" earlier without explanation. To be honest this is not my field and all I know of this is some college courses and alot of reading and thinking. My work for the last few years relates to complexity theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is C[sup]2[/sup] a constant?

 

[Maxwell511]

It doesn't. It states that the cat is in more than one state at the same time (in this case, the cat can be in either the 'alive' state or the 'dead' state, and quantum mechanics says that it is in both).

Physical location is a (part of) state.

Seriously why do I not exist in more than two places at once? This question confuses and angers me; please say you have an answer.

 

[RealityCheck]

Physical location is a (part of) state.

Seriously why do I not exist in more than two places at once? This question confuses and angers me; please say you have an answer.

1) Because you are not a single particle, you are an aggregation of billions/trillions of particles, and their interactions are bound together.

2) You DO have a wave function, so you are both a wave and particle, and can be in two places at once... but your size and mass mean the uncertainty in your position/momentum is so small as to be negligible.

3) Even if you DID exist in two distinct places at once, that would only be possible if you remained unobserved (apparently). Since you observe yourself, and are readily observed by others, your wave function is constantly collapsing to a single solution.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Physical location is a (part of) state.

Not in this system it's not. The two states of the hypothetical systems are |alive> and |dead>. That's it.

Seriously why do I not exist in more than two places at once? This question confuses and angers me; please say you have an answer.

Define 'I'. You are composed of countless particles (indeed, the particles that constitute 'you' are completely replaced every seven years or so), each with their own (quantum mechanical) position. In that sense, you not only exist in more than two places, you exist in countless places.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is C[sup]2[/sup] a constant?

Depends what you mean by 'C'. If you're referring to the speed of light, then, as far as we know, yes, it's a constant.

 

[Assyrian]

Seriously why do I not exist in more than two places at once?

Have you checked lately?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

2) You DO have a wave function, so you are both a wave and particle, ...

I'm not totally enamoured with the idea of wave-particle duality. It's particles, all the way down .

 

[Maxwell511]

1) Because you are not a single particle, you are an aggregation of billions/trillions of particles, and their interactions are bound together.

I am not sure why this suggests that I shouldn't exist in more than one place. Please expand. Also define what "multiple particles" mean and how they interact. As far as I understand QM does not suggest the existence of multiple particles, they exist as concepts for mathematical simplification and analogical reasons.

2) You DO have a wave function, so you are both a wave and particle, and can be in two places at once... but your size and mass mean the uncertainty in your position/momentum is so small as to be negligible.

While I am also placing my bets on Penrose's of idea of gravity/mass "causing" wave collaspe this is just speculation at the moment. I'm also not sure what size has to do with it.

3) Even if you DID exist in two distinct places at once, that would only be possible if you remained unobserved (apparently). Since you observe yourself, and are readily observed by others, your wave function is constantly collapsing to a single solution.

Define observer or observation? I could claim that seaweed causes state reduction and that no human is an observer. Observation in QM means state reduction, there is no statements in the theory that (1) it happens or (2) if it does what causes it.

 

[Maxwell511]

Define 'I'.

"INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER."