They hit the screen always in definite positions. How that is not particle like interaction?
Upvote
0
-
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.
Quantum particles
- Thread starter Upisoft
- Start date
Chalnoth
Senior Contributor
The probability with which they strike the screen is given by a probability distribution that incorporates interference from each slit.
This is really no different from the photons that are stopped or or not stopped by the polarizing filters. The probability distribution in question is just discrete instead of continuous.
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
ok, I seem to be missing part of your point then. You accept that particles have been observed to have properties such as interference, but object to extrapolating the formulas that define particle interference to objects to large to directly be observed to have these properties. Is there any specific limit you would place on when a particle becomes too large to have these properties? Is there a formula that allows this while fitting current observations of "small" particles?
Upvote
0
Probably it could be defined in terms of some Planck constants. Perhaps there is a limit which is not only practically but theoretically unobservable. For example, wave length less than Planck length.
Upvote
0
Single photon strikes the screen with probability 1. There is no probability there.
Yes, there is difference. The fact is that some photons have been stopped. The fact is that inserting 45 degrees filter changes the probability for the second 90 degrees filter. Do you say that the third filter is fortune teller and knows there is another filter in between it and the first one?
Upvote
0
Chalnoth
Senior Contributor
Uh, I wasn't talking about the probability of striking the screen. I was talking about the probability distribution of where it strikes the screen. That probability distribution is quite like the one associated with the one that describes whether or not photons pass though a polarization filter.
No, I say that the middle filter changes the quantum state of the photons that pass through it.
Upvote
0
So, you basically state that the same photon that hit, say coordinates x:0 y:0, had the probability to hit any other point of the screen. Can you prove it without using the "wave function collapse" dogma?
I will again say that I agree with you. BUT I disagree that you can use "quantum state" in particle like explanation. You did it quite well when you interpret photons as electro-magnetic field wave and thus gave the "wave like" explanation. You said that you can do the same for the "particle like" explanation, but you still can't do it.
Upvote
0
Chalnoth
Senior Contributor
Trivially. Just observe the probability distribution by looking at a large number of photons.
Well, now you're just being silly. When dealing with quantum mechanical particles, you need to worry about the quantum state, or you'll get the wrong answer. This is why you just can't separate the two.
Upvote
0
Nope. That are different photons. You can't do experiment with other photons and then deduce: "well, the first one could hit anywhere".
I'm not silly. Open your textbook of classical physics and you will not see anything "quantum". Yet the particle interactions are well described.
Upvote
0
Chalnoth
Senior Contributor
You seem to be arguing for some sort of hidden variable theory. Those were shown to be incompatible with quantum mechanics via Bell's theorem. Put simply, the probability distribution of photons striking the screen is properly predicted by quantum mechanics.
And they utterly fail to describe the behavior of quantum particles (i.e. particles with small masses).
Upvote
0
Say what? A theorem? In science? Ahhh... no. That's mathematics.
Agreed. However, you were the one that insisted you can show how they interact both particle like and wave like in the same time.
Upvote
0
Wave particle duality holds with both large and small mass particles. The wave component of large particles can safely be written off because it is minimal (as predicted and calculated by QM). It is classical models that break down under some conditions (small particles)
Upvote
0
And in every room there is invisible pink unicorn, that I predicted is minimal. Therefore it can safely be written off.
Upvote
0
To say that there is interference for larger objects, because the formula says so.... it is the same as saying there is invisible pink unicorns.
It is one thing to create formula that predicts everything observable. It's another thing to start using the same formula to predict the unobservable.
Upvote
0
Chalnoth
Senior Contributor
No, it's not the same, because the interference is observable for smaller objects, and is measured to a very high degree of accuracy for them. If you wanted to propose that the interference pattern did not occur for larger objects, you'd need to have some reason to do so.
Upvote
0
Yes, I have reason. It haven't been observed.
The next thing you will say will be that large objects have spin, superposition and can tunnel. And, perhaps there are virtual large objects. Yeah? Like my invisible pink unicorns.
I'll be out for 3 days. Keep thinking on that.
Upvote
0
Have you observed the unicorn in both massless and massive particles and verified that it fits the equations in all observable instances?
Wave particle duality has been observed across a range of particle sizes. Each measurement validates the equations. What we lack is any model that supports an arbitrary change in the laws of physics for objects above a certain size.
Upvote
0
I'm blessed. We have wireless internet in the motel.
The are virtual. As all virtual particles predicted by the same QM.
And here you do the same logical error that most Creationists do when they apply theory of Evolution on abiogenesis. They do not respect the limits. There are always limit of validity. There are no infinities in the reality. You wanted evidence about my unicorns. There isn't any. That's the point. In the same time, you postulated that the wave length can be very small. Disregarding the possibility and perhaps the fact that there are size limits in the lower range. Say, the quantum of space.
Upvote
0
no, they are real particles. alpha particles are pretty big. 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Basically a helium nucleus. If one were to count that as "virtual" there would be no basis I can think of for anything to not be virtual.
The thing is, we have the calculations. We can test those formulas across a range of particle sizes. We can verify that those formulas match observations. This is a testable thing.
As for the size limitations, we have found no evidence of a universal quantum size or distance. Quarks give us quantum masses, charges and a few other things, but there is no quantum distance or wavelength.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
