• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,726
46,794
Los Angeles Area
✟1,045,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Why "basically"? It's an actual single particle right? It has to be aimed somewhere, no?

It's an actual single wavicle.

Yes, the intent of the first slit is to 'focus' the electron toward the spot between the two subsequent slits.

Since the electron has wave properties, it diffracts from the first slit, spreading out its possible trajectories.

Indeed, if the electron behaved like a classical particle, it would just smack into the wall, right? There's no chance of it going through either of the subsequent slits.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,726
46,794
Los Angeles Area
✟1,045,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I learned a new word.

I think of a wave as action/energy through things (plural). How does a single thing act like a wave?

Well, for instance by diffracting when it passes through a slit.

Or to answer 'how' a different way -- since quantum mechanics is true, it doesn't have any choice. Every thing is a wavicle. photons, electrons, atoms, etc. When the thing is very big, the quantum nature is not easy to see, and they behave as either 'particles' or 'waves' to our human experience.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
27,049
21,784
Flatland
✟1,125,342.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The experiment that demonstrates this best is the double slit experiment that we have been discussing. A single electron interferes with itself like a wave.

Well, for instance by diffracting when it passes through a slit.

Or to answer 'how' a different way -- since quantum mechanics is true, it doesn't have any choice. Every thing is a wavicle. photons, electrons, atoms, etc. When the thing is very big, the quantum nature is not easy to see, and they behave as either 'particles' or 'waves' to our human experience.

I can't understand a single thing interfering with itself or diffracting. I'll guess I'll give up here, unless you guys are in the mood to try and educate me further. I know there is math and experiments that back this stuff up, and math doesn't lie, but if it weren't for that I'd think physicists are insane.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
I can't understand a single thing interfering with itself or diffracting.

I prefer not to use videos, but this one shows real water waves producing the interference patterns, if that helps.

Ripple Tank: Single and Double Slit Diffraction and Interference - YouTube

I know there is math and experiments that back this stuff up, and math doesn't lie, but if it weren't for that I'd think physicists are insane.

Hehe, welcome to quantum mechanics!!
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
27,049
21,784
Flatland
✟1,125,342.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I prefer not to use videos, but this one shows real water waves producing the interference patterns, if that helps.

I understand a wave involving lots of particles as with water molecules. One particle disturbs or imparts energy to the particle next to it and so on. But how does a single electron or photon impart energy to itself?
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,726
46,794
Los Angeles Area
✟1,045,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I understand a wave involving lots of particles as with water molecules. One particle disturbs or imparts energy to the particle next to it and so on. But how does a single electron or photon impart energy to itself?

Maybe this will help. Maybe.

Water waves, waves on a vibrating string, sound, and light are all waves (classically). Yet they are all very different things. Different things are moving, different media (or maybe no medium in the case of light). The motion of the moving bits can be parallel (sound) or perpendicular (water) with respect to the motion of the wave.

When physicists look at these problems generally, the similarity we see is in the equations that govern their motion, which is called the wave equation, which has certain mathematical features.

When quantum mechanics was developed, it became clear that the motion of quantum wavicles obeyed something that looks quite a lot like the wave equation. The Schrödinger wave equation describes the motion of our wavicles, which are mathematically represented by a 'wavefunction'.

If you like, it is the similarity to the wave equation that leads us to name the probability function the wave function. And because of the mathematical similarities, the behavior of these objects is similar to what we think of as classical waves. ETA: But wavicles are not waves in the sense of a disturbance caused by bits of matter jiggling the bits of matter next to them.

Quoting the wiki page on the Schrödinger equation:

The nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation is a type of partial differential equation called a wave equation. Therefore it is often said particles can exhibit behavior usually attributed to waves. In most modern interpretations this description is reversed – the quantum state, i.e. wave, is the only genuine physical reality, and under the appropriate conditions it can show features of particle-like behavior.

Two-slit diffraction is a famous example of the strange behaviors that waves regularly display, that are not intuitively associated with particles. The overlapping waves from the two slits cancel each other out in some locations, and reinforce each other in other locations, causing a complex pattern to emerge. Intuitively, one would not expect this pattern from firing a single particle at the slits, because the particle should pass through one slit or the other, not a complex overlap of both.

However, since the Schrödinger equation is a wave equation, a single particle fired through a double-slit does show this same pattern (figure on right). Note: The experiment must be repeated many times for the complex pattern to emerge. The appearance of the pattern proves that each electron passes through both slits simultaneously.[7][8][9] Although this is counterintuitive, the prediction is correct; in particular, electron diffraction and neutron diffraction are well understood and widely used in science and engineering.

Related to diffraction, particles also display superposition and interference.

The superposition property allows the particle to be in a quantum superposition of two or more states with different classical properties at the same time. For example, a particle can have several different energies at the same time, and can be in several different locations at the same time. In the above example, a particle can pass through two slits at the same time. This superposition is still a single quantum state, as shown by the interference effects, even though that conflicts with classical intuition.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I did mention Zeno early on, but I didn't specifically point to the "half of a half" thing.

Regardless, can you really add the infinite series? Has anyone actually sat down and demonstrated the sum of an infinite series by adding up all it's members? Or do we demonstrate what would happen if we could?

If you accept set theory you can add infinite series with mathematical rigor.

Essentially we logically prove what happens when we sum infinite sets.

So when it comes to real motion, is the electron actually traversing an infinite number of points? Or is this some Platonist type of thing where the mathematical proof of convergence to a finite result "exists" and so the electron can use that "form" for its traversal? Or is it something else?

The points are just ideas. Mathematics are descriptive ideas.

You can move across an infinite number of infinitely small points because the function F(t) changes values with respect to any change in t.

All calculus is a mathematical product of changes in dimension (adding up infinitely small values) and it shows us that an infinite set of infinitely small values add up to finite sums in different dimensions.

What this shows us though is that you can model continuous motion with math and it doesn't present any paradox.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I'm just going by Resha's set-up from page one. He posits an infinite number of "points" between A and B. Obviously, point B can never be reached. Which raises the question "can any point be reached?" No, there could really be no motion.

This is only a problem if we accept Zeno. There are theoretically an infinite number of infinitely small points between any given two points, but continuous motion would still be possible because they take a similarly infinitely small amount of time to traverse.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Essentially we logically prove what happens when we sum infinite sets.

That would be the second of the two options I mentioned. It shows the result if we could add an infinite series. It doesn't actually do it.

Think of it this way. It takes you a finite time to perform a mathematical operation. Let's say it takes you the same time (t) to add each value in the series. The total time (T) required for you to add up (n) numbers would be given as:

T = n*t

So what happens as n approaches infinity?

What this shows us though is that you can model continuous motion with math and it doesn't present any paradox.

Of course. That's what classical mechanics is all about. But I wasn't asking if we could model motion with calculus. I was asking if the motion really is a series of infinitesimally small changes in location.

Math can represent reality, but we shouldn't assume that means reality is represented by a particular type of math. Since computers use a discrete clock, control theory based on computers requires discrete math rather than the variational calculus you mentioned: Discrete mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems everyone is saying they think motion is discrete (I don't recall someone positing an example of infinitesimal motion that is real), so I don't understand why we're struggling to move on from that point.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That would be the second of the two options I mentioned. It shows the result if we could add an infinite series. It doesn't actually do it.

You don't have to work out the infinite number of operations to add an infinite series.

We add infinite series all the time, logically.

Think of it this way. It takes you a finite time to perform a mathematical operation. Let's say it takes you the same time (t) to add each value in the series. The total time (T) required for you to add up (n) numbers would be given as:

T = n*t

So what happens as n approaches infinity?

T approaches infinity.

Of course. That's what classical mechanics is all about. But I wasn't asking if we could model motion with calculus. I was asking if the motion really is a series of infinitesimally small changes in location.

Probably not, for that we would need infinitely small amounts of energy to move the object an infinitely small amount of distance, where as quantum mechanics suggests that energy is transferred in discreet packets rather than continuously as would be required.

Math can represent reality, but we shouldn't assume that means reality is represented by a particular type of math. Since computers use a discrete clock, control theory based on computers requires discrete math rather than the variational calculus you mentioned: Discrete mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems everyone is saying they think motion is discrete (I don't recall someone positing an example of infinitesimal motion that is real), so I don't understand why we're struggling to move on from that point.

My point is that Zeno's paradox doesn't, and can't, rule out classical motion via rational paradox, because logically infinities can exist since they sum to real numbers in his examples.

Zeno would be right for the wrong reason.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
My point is that Zeno's paradox doesn't, and can't, rule out classical motion via rational paradox, because logically infinities can exist since they sum to real numbers in his examples.

Zeno would be right for the wrong reason.

An excellent paper on Zeno, and my favorite is: "Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno’s Paradoxes Miss The Point" by Alba Papa-Grimaldi. Who knows what Zeno was actually thinking when he presented the paradoxes, but Grimaldi makes an excellent case to say we may have misinterpreted his point.

But, I won't argue what you said. In fact, in my previous thread there seemed to be some consensus that infinite time is necessary to avoid heat death. So, I agree infinities can exist.

Probably not, for that we would need infinitely small amounts of energy to move the object an infinitely small amount of distance, where as quantum mechanics suggests that energy is transferred in discreet packets rather than continuously as would be required.

Thanks.

In my mind discrete motion means that as something moves from location P to location Q, there is a time when it is at neither P nor Q. Further, it would seem to say it is nowhere. To argue otherwise would seem to loop back to saying something is continuous.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
An excellent paper on Zeno, and my favorite is: "Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno’s Paradoxes Miss The Point" by Alba Papa-Grimaldi. Who knows what Zeno was actually thinking when he presented the paradoxes, but Grimaldi makes an excellent case to say we may have misinterpreted his point.

He makes an interesting case regardless of it was actually HIS point...

But, I won't argue what you said. In fact, in my previous thread there seemed to be some consensus that infinite time is necessary to avoid heat death. So, I agree infinities can exist.

OK, except I think you may be missing the point that infinite divisions exist over any finite distance/measurement. And, I am not sure it is necessary for the universe to avoid heat death.

Thanks.

In my mind discrete motion means that as something moves from location P to location Q, there is a time when it is at neither P nor Q. Further, it would seem to say it is nowhere. To argue otherwise would seem to loop back to saying something is continuous.

I'm not sure I agree with your implication here, time/space are free to also be discreet, as well as position is free to be non-localized.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,726
46,794
Los Angeles Area
✟1,045,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
It seems everyone is saying they think motion is discrete (I don't recall someone positing an example of infinitesimal motion that is real), so I don't understand why we're struggling to move on from that point.


Mostly we're saying that it isn't continuous in any usual sense, but that doesn't mean that it's discrete.

Just as waves are continuous, and particles are discrete, and quantum objects are neither (or both). I think the categories of 'discrete' and 'continuous' do not describe quantum motion very well.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Mostly we're saying that it isn't continuous in any usual sense, but that doesn't mean that it's discrete.

I have learned some new things, and have tried to adjust accordingly. However, I think the implications of my original question still remain. We appear to have reached a point where people are saying no to the implications without explaining why.

I realize what I'm saying can't be shown, which is why we're in the philosophy forum. If some think that makes the whole discussion pointless, they're free to move on.

However, it seems to me that no matter how one answers the question of motion, one arrives at a very perplexing situation. The wavicle is not such an oddity. It can be demonstrated, codified, and even justified to the mind - at least my mind. Yes, it's odd when first encountered, but it's possible to get past it. I was hoping some might be willing to move on and wrestle with the next puzzle.

Just as waves are continuous, and particles are discrete, and quantum objects are neither (or both). I think the categories of 'discrete' and 'continuous' do not describe quantum motion very well.

Feel free to offer other words if you have them, but at this point it seems to me they still work just fine. It feels as if you're still stuck on how an electron is both and neither a wave/particle. I get that, but I'm not talking of a location of a particle anymore. I'm talking of the reference location of an electron.

OK, except I think you may be missing the point that infinite divisions exist over any finite distance/measurement.

No, I understand that. I can imagine how within a system of electrons one electron might have location x, and some time later another electron might have location x+dx. Whether that would actually happen is another matter, but I can imagine it.

However, if you're saying you think the motion of a single electron proceeds as x+dx them you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not sure I agree with your implication here, time/space are free to also be discreet, as well as position is free to be non-localized.

There comes a point where one can say things that have no meaning. I'll give you a chance to explain what "free to be non-localized" means, but at the moment it sounds like a meaningless phrase ... an attempt to make the non-existent exist.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
However, if you're saying you think the motion of a single electron proceeds as x+dx them you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If the motion of a single electron proceeds that way it would do so continuously.

This may be possible with discrete energy, but I would doubt it.

There comes a point where one can say things that have no meaning. I'll give you a chance to explain what "free to be non-localized" means, but at the moment it sounds like a meaningless phrase ... an attempt to make the non-existent exist.

I'm just not buying your blinking out of existence for a bit idea as I don't think the electron ever ceases to exist.

It works if say, the electron exists as a moving field with an array of probability of existing as an electron at any given point.

That may be hard for you to conceptualize neatly but it doesn't mean it's not a better description of what is happening.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Going from memory again . . .

I remember an experiment described in "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" that might help explain superposition and "being in more than one place at a time". In that experiment, you have three polarized lenses stacked on top of one another. Each lens is at a 45 degree angle compared to the one above it so that you have slits that are at 12:00, 1:30, and 3:00 if they were the hour hand on a clock. As it turns out, some light can actually get through if you have all three lenses. However, if you take out the middle lens, the 1:30 lens, then you don't get any light to come through.

Does this ring a bell? Am I describing it correctly?
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,726
46,794
Los Angeles Area
✟1,045,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Upvote 0