Theist or atheist
- Thread starter laladopi
- Start date
Well, the electron takes slit A and not B and it takes slit B and not A and it takes both slits and it takes none of the slits at the same time. Sounds like a contradiction until you understand why. Who would have even considered that until quantum physics?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
A drunk?
Small interpretation correction. In a two-slit setup, every tiny particle fired spreads out like a wave of clones. If you put two slits into water and then throw a pebble in it, that is the effect. When the environment requires a specific location then that wave collapses. The result of course is moment-to-moment consistency.
A contradiction is when that consistency is violated. For example, if 1+1=2 AND 1+1=Tapioca we would have a contradiction. Superpositions of a schrodinger wave don't share that violation of consistency. What they do show is a phenomenon concerning how reality is rendered.
like a spread of clones
The particle interacts with itself, because the same particle is at different locations at the same time. There are no clones, it is the same particle that are in different locations. I guess you could say that it depends on the interpretation being used, and clones might be if you assert that the many-worlds interpretation is correct, but I guess then that it wouldn't just be clones of the particles but actually clones of the entire world (we don't want to break any energy conservation rules)...if you aren't thinking of some kind of sub-interpretation to many-worlds.
And when does the environment require a specific location? When it has to give out the location of course.
Of course if we try and locate it, it has to show a specific location, otherwise we would witness a contradiction - and that just can't happen, but as long as no one looks it actually do behave in a contradictory (to us) behaviour, and it's obvious if you look at the results.
Ok, I give you that, all of the possibilities that happen are supported in logic, but they do happen at the same time, which doesn't contradict any logic about the quantum way of things, but if conditions are set so that it has to move into our logic then it has to relate in that way instead, and in that logic the same particle just can't be at two places at once, and we do force it to be at one place by setting up the conditions so that it is. But the results show differently (if no such conditions exists).
If I'm incorrect in any of this then please correct me cause this is my current understanding of it.
Also; you say that it shows how reality is rendered, I'm willing to agree on that.
Last edited:
You might be right that the particle interacts with itself... but I am really not sure. What I am sure of are clones... lots and lots of clones and you are also correct in that it is the same particle in different locations. Every particle has a certain amount of energy. As a particle "waves out", the energy is spread out and divided (much like a wave after tossing a pebble in a pond). In a two-slit experiment what is actually being detected are multiple particles (clones) at once. The clones each have a lower amount of energy that gets lower and lower as the wave expands (much like the wave from a pebble tossed in a pond has a peak that gets lower and lower). Nonetheless, it's how we know about the phenomenon to begin with.
I recall it being when a vector-changing effect is to occur. Ex, a particle bouncing, being absorbed, being translated, etc.
There's an implied assertion in this paragraph and that is human observation exclusively causes wave collapse. If that is a correct interpretation then I'll interject and say its not true. An observer in physics is any system that can acquire information.
You lost me on this one. Maybe a paraprase will help.
I don't know the stuff about each particle having lower and lower energy, I guess it could be true though, but do you mean that if the one particle exists in two places at once each particle get half the energy? So that the total amount is conserved?
I don't know...I don't think it works that way, but I could be wrong.
Yes. I would think that it's something like that.
The reason why the particle that didn't go through the slits due to bouncing didn't collapse the entire wavefunction (displaying bullet type measurements on the detecor) must then be because the measured particle was changed even when it got through the slits (of course then the whole system is changed - or interfered with).
I agree that a observer is any system that can acquire information, and that a human is a sub-class of that. There might be a human importance in this though, which probably can't be proven - but to an extent implied on various quantum physics topics.
It seems to me that the uncertainty principle is also on the list of things which seems to deal with acquiring information - but not too much, or acquire information - but the system has to change so that you don't see what you can't understand type of thing.
I think it's obvious that it can be interpreted that way, but nevertheless I don't think it can be proven though (which is probably also one of those nature-laws lol)
Well, if we are in the same club as the electrons then the electrons behave quite differently than if the electrons are in the same club as us.
Or rather; if we let the electrons be for themselves then they behave in one manner but if we change the rules so that they have to behave in a way that we see, then they behave in another.
We only see the end results of their private club
so to speak.And if we change the rules a bit so that we take a peak into their private club then they clean it up and we have a different end result.
(that is - of course - so to speak)