Quantum particles

[michabo]

Didn't said that. The electron is still acting like a wave until it interacts with the detector where that information is being erased from its state. No magic here.

This "erased state" explanation of yours requires that the path the electron traveled must change retroactively, hence your explanation requires magical time-traveling electrons.

We're all wrong. The electrons are what they are.

That's what I'm saying. They aren't particles. They aren't waves. They're something else entirely.

Do you have an experiment that shows the electrons have been observed in this state?

If it is observed, the probabilities collapse. However, this description of electrons predicts their observed behavior in the double-slit where "particle/wave" does not, and it predicts tunneling and other bizarre behavior.

It is the dot on the screen.

That's what I'm saying. Where was it the instant before it struck? Where did it go the instant after detection?

And that brief moment was the only moment when you can observe it. Other moments are some fancy mathematics that do pretty good job to predict their behavior, but in fact it have not been observed.

So you are aware that the theory which says that electrons do not have a definite position until they interact with another "particle" is one of the most successful theories of the last century. QM has been tested to fantastic accuracy, and you seem to agree.

Yet you want to observe what the theory itself says is unobservable?

You know about many experiments which clearly demonstrate quantum weirdness, so what more do you want? What more can you expect? Do you know about Bell's Inequality, or the CHSH inequality? Do you know about the experiments Alain Aspect has conducted which confirmed them?

 

[Upisoft]

This "erased state" explanation of yours requires that the path the electron traveled must change retroactively, hence your explanation requires magical time-traveling electrons.

If you suppose there is such thing like path, between interactions. Yet you don't know, do you? Invoking magical path could invoke magical time-traveling.

That's what I'm saying. They aren't particles. They aren't waves. They're something else entirely.

I totally agree.

If it is observed, the probabilities collapse. However, this description of electrons predicts their observed behavior in the double-slit where "particle/wave" does not, and it predicts tunneling and other bizarre behavior.

It predicts, ok. That does not mean it is. Electrons are not bunch of equations. Of course, you can take the equations and ask yourself, "what does the electron do between the interactions"? You may find a pretty fancy answer, but that answer is not science, because you have no way to test it. You can test it only by interactig with the electron. Describing the electron between the interactions and believing that it has to behave as you predictec has no scientific value.

That's what I'm saying. Where was it the instant before it struck? Where did it go the instant after detection?

Along its magical path.

So you are aware that the theory which says that electrons do not have a definite position until they interact with another "particle" is one of the most successful theories of the last century. QM has been tested to fantastic accuracy, and you seem to agree.

Yes I agree. I disagree when someone starts to use it in the gaps.

Yet you want to observe what the theory itself says is unobservable?

No, I don't want that.

You know about many experiments which clearly demonstrate quantum weirdness, so what more do you want? What more can you expect? Do you know about Bell's Inequality, or the CHSH inequality? Do you know about the experiments Alain Aspect has conducted which confirmed them?

No I don't know about them, but it's neve late to learn someting new. Nevertheless I would be supprised if they make possible observation without interaction.

 

[michabo]

No I don't know about them, but it's neve late to learn someting new. Nevertheless I would be supprised if they make possible observation without interaction.

Check them out. I thought that Feynman's description of quantum weirdness blew me away, but when I read about Aspect's work, I was floored. There's no real-world analog for quantum weirdness. No wonder Einstein wouldn't accept it, this literally overthrows our intuitive grasp of reality.

 

[Upisoft]

Check them out. I thought that Feynman's description of quantum weirdness blew me away, but when I read about Aspect's work, I was floored. There's no real-world analog for quantum weirdness. No wonder Einstein wouldn't accept it, this literally overthrows our intuitive grasp of reality.

I will. QM

 

[Chalnoth]

Don't you see. You explain that using only electromagnetic field, which has wave-like properties. Where was your "but it was particle in the same time" part?

No, for two reasons:

Firstly, a single photon behaves differently. What you see when you observe light going through a polarizing filter is the collective action of huge numbers of photons. Whenever you have large numbers of photons at reasonable temperatures, the number of photons becomes immaterial and they collectively behave like a classical electromagnetic wave.

The second reason is that I could just as easily describe the polarization phenomenon as the collective action of huge numbers of individual photons (emphasizing their particle nature) as I could describe them as being a classical EM wave. In essence, their nature as quantum mechanical particles makes their wave/particle nature indistinguishable.

 

[Maxwell511]

A photon is a photon and will act like one. Because we don't have enough information about photons we try to comprehend it with concepts that we already know. We understand the concepts of waves and particles so this is how we explain the photon's behaviour. Trying to say that a fundamental particle is either a wave or particle seems to me to assume that we have already formed a complete conceptual basis of what things can be.

 

[Chalnoth]

Because we don't have enough information about photons we try to comprehend it with concepts that we already know.

Not really. Mathematically we understand the behavior of a photon quite well. The problem is that we don't live in a world where individual photons are a part of our daily experiences, or the experiences of our ancestors. They are so far out of our experience that our species never evolved the capacity to actually obtain any sort of intuitive understanding of what things like quantum mechanical particles do. We just aren't equipped to do so.

It is no problem, however, to mathematically describe the behavior of a photon.

 

[Maxwell511]

Not really. Mathematically we understand the behavior of a photon quite well. The problem is that we don't live in a world where individual photons are a part of our daily experiences, or the experiences of our ancestors. They are so far out of our experience that our species never evolved the capacity to actually obtain any sort of intuitive understanding of what things like quantum mechanical particles do. We just aren't equipped to do so.
.

Familiar mathematical concepts. The fact is that we cannot use the same mathematical concepts to completely describe the behaviour of a photon. Personally I view this as a fundamental misinterpretation of reality. There must be a coherent mathematical framework that describes QM without reference to other concepts. In essence a single equation (not necessarily one equation that is just the best description my mind can phantom ATM) that describes both the wave and particle nature of photons etc.

 

[Lucretius]

I agree with Chalnoth on this one. Photons are only noticeable on a very small scale. We live on a scale that only looked at things much larger. While the world of the normal-size makes lots of intuitive sense because that is what everyday experience taught us, what reason do we have to believe the world of the very small will behave exactly the same way, even though we never experience it every day (when I say that, I mean, we do EXPERIENCE it, because it's nature, but we don't notice it and so don't have to rationalize it)

 

[Chalnoth]

Familiar mathematical concepts. The fact is that we cannot use the same mathematical concepts to completely describe the behaviour of a photon.

How not? Granted, we may not necessarily know the exact behavior of the photon, but we do have mathematical models which describe the behavior of the photon within the accuracy of all current experiments.

There must be a coherent mathematical framework that describes QM without reference to other concepts. In essence a single equation (not necessarily one equation that is just the best description my mind can phantom ATM) that describes both the wave and particle nature of photons etc.

Uh, this is a standard feature of quantum mechanics.

 

[Maxwell511]

How not? Granted, we may not necessarily know the exact behavior of the photon, but we do have mathematical models which describe the behavior of the photon within the accuracy of all current experiments.

I feel I am not explaining my ideas right.

Basically I think that they way QM is now is analogous to Wien Law/Rayleigh-Jeans law. The situation can be completely described but one instance must be partitioned into one of the two "understandings". But there exists a more fundamental understanding, that in my analogy would be Planck's law, that needs to be found.

Does that make sense?

 

[Chalnoth]

I feel I am not explaining my ideas right.

Basically I think that they way QM is now is analogous to Wien Law/Rayleigh-Jeans law. The situation can be completely described but one instance must be partitioned into one of the two "understandings". But there exists a more fundamental understanding, that in my analogy would be Planck's law, that needs to be found.

Does that make sense?

Perhaps, but I really don't see the need. The photon is nothing more than a massless spin-1 particle that transforms under a U(1) gauge symmetry, coupling to electric charge. These properties completely define the behavior of the photon within the context of quantum field theory (specifically, these properties define a Lagrangian which governs the behavior of photons).

 

[Upisoft]

No, for two reasons:

Firstly, a single photon behaves differently. What you see when you observe light going through a polarizing filter is the collective action of huge numbers of photons. Whenever you have large numbers of photons at reasonable temperatures, the number of photons becomes immaterial and they collectively behave like a classical electromagnetic wave.

How differently?

The second reason is that I could just as easily describe the polarization phenomenon as the collective action of huge numbers of individual photons (emphasizing their particle nature) as I could describe them as being a classical EM wave. In essence, their nature as quantum mechanical particles makes their wave/particle nature indistinguishable.

I want to see that.

 

[Upisoft]

I agree with Chalnoth on this one. Photons are only noticeable on a very small scale. We live on a scale that only looked at things much larger. While the world of the normal-size makes lots of intuitive sense because that is what everyday experience taught us, what reason do we have to believe the world of the very small will behave exactly the same way, even though we never experience it every day (when I say that, I mean, we do EXPERIENCE it, because it's nature, but we don't notice it and so don't have to rationalize it)

I don't disagree on that. What I disagree is to claim that photons interact both like a wave and like particles, in the same time. In other words one could not observe their duality in the same interaction. I.e. you can't have interference and which slit information in the double-slit experiment.

 

[[serious]]

How differently?

If I'm reading him right, he is saying that rules governing mass action of photons do not necessarily apply to individual photons. This is accurate according to the quantum I've taken.

Let me give an analogy. Say you had a bunch of sand flowing through an hourglass. You can model that sand as a fluid despite it being solid because the mass action of the particles produces fluid effects. It is impossible to model a single grain of sand as a fluid in this way.

 

[Upisoft]

Check them out. I thought that Feynman's description of quantum weirdness blew me away, but when I read about Aspect's work, I was floored. There's no real-world analog for quantum weirdness. No wonder Einstein wouldn't accept it, this literally overthrows our intuitive grasp of reality.

I read some info about it. I knew some part of the info anyway, but that was not as weird as this: http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm

 

[Chalnoth]

If I'm reading him right, he is saying that rules governing mass action of photons do not necessarily apply to individual photons. This is accurate according to the quantum I've taken.

Let me give an analogy. Say you had a bunch of sand flowing through an hourglass. You can model that sand as a fluid despite it being solid because the mass action of the particles produces fluid effects. It is impossible to model a single grain of sand as a fluid in this way.

Yeah, that's precisely it.

 

[Chalnoth]

I want to see that.

Well, that's already been described in this thread.

As individual photons, you explain the phenomenon by stating that each photon is always in a combination of two polarization states. Which two states depends upon the direction of the polarizer. Each photon has some probability of making it through each polarizer, depending upon the direction of subsequent polarizers. Thus some percentage of the photons make it through, and some percentage do not.

As an electromagnetic wave description, the alignment of the polarization of the EM wave determines how much makes it through: the component of the E field that is parallel to the polarizer axis continues. Thus each pass through a polarizer reduces the strength of the EM wave by some amount depending upon its angle with respect to the polarizer.

Two different descriptions, same phenomenon. Both are accurate in the classical limit.

 

[JGL53]

You guys seem deeply interested in the problem so, just to loosen up your prejudices a bit, I might suggest you read "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour. He makes the case that time is just an illusion (like "things") and if it is, then relativity and quantum field theory can be compatible.

As for myself, I'm still trying to get my mind around Bell's Theorum. As I understand it, it argues for a radical monism, which - it seems to me - makes time, matter, and space illusionary.

 

[michabo]

I read some info about it. I knew some part of the info anyway, but that was not as weird as this: http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm

That's pretty cool too, for sure!

The more I read about the QM world, the more I'm convinced that any comprehensive definition of "supernatural" must encompass QM. (That's not a good thing for supporters of the supernatural.)