Implications of Quantum Physics

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by TCO
you dropped your hat...

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No it doesn't....

Trust me, physicists didn't drop the deterministic view without a fight.

What doesn't fit now in stat mech world?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


What doesn't fit now in stat mech world?

Huh? I never said that stat mech doesn't work. I said that the analogy between stat mech and quantum doesn't work.

[KrazyHorse]

GP, I really want to know what you're trying to propose.

I'm saying that the evidence implies that not only do we not know the exact state of a particle at all times but also that the particle does not have an exact state at all times.

If it was merely that we didn't know then particles would not interfere with themselves. The easiest demonstration of them doing so are double-slit experiments (interference between a superposition of position states), but with a bit more effort you can have a particle in a superposition of spin states interfering with itself...

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No it doesn't....

Trust me, physicists didn't drop the deterministic view without a fight.

I trust you. I just want to understand versus saying I believe based on authority. But I'm lazy. Spoonfeed me.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Huh? I never said that stat mech doesn't work. I said that the analogy between stat mech and quantum doesn't work.

so determinism (tree does fall or whatever) does fit with all observations of stat mech?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


I trust you. I just want to understand versus saying I believe based on authority. But I'm lazy. Spoonfeed me.

I already did.

I don't know how many times I can say double slit experiment...

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
GP, I really want to know what you're trying to propose.

I'm saying that the evidence implies that not only do we not know the exact state of a particle at all times but also that the particle does not have an exact state at all times.

If it was merely that we didn't know then particles would not interfere with themselves. The easiest demonstration of them doing so are double-slit experiments (interference between a superposition of position states), but with a bit more effort you can have a particle in a superposition of spin states interfering with itself...

I'm not PROPOSING anything. Just questioning things. I need to think through your evidence. I need to concentrate to do it. Doesn't come easy.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I already did.

I don't know how many times I can say double slit experiment...

Like a baby with Gerber is what I want...

Or I just need to break down and exert some effort. That's ok too.

[KrazyHorse]

GP, you have two choices: either the particle is always in a definite state or it is not.

If it is always in a definite state then it has to pass through one or the other slit. It can't be in two places at once. "Wave-particle duality" is just another way of saying that the particle has no definite position (position is an observable, just like any other) therefore it can be described to be in a superposition of position states. If it had a definite position state then the graph of the wavefunction would be a delta spike.

[KrazyHorse]

If it passes through a single slit then each point on the screen has a definite phase factor associated with it since it has to travel a certain distance to get there and the phase is exp(ikr)

however, this means that there are no interference effects (for there to be an interference effect there have to be two impinging waves with different phase factors)

[Lul Thyme]

The thing I dont understand about this thread is:


Is TCO GP?

[KrazyHorse]

< GP |TCO > = 1

[TCO]

ok kitty. Any experiments related to the actual shroedinger thing that have same effect as slit experiments? I guess I have to buy that the position is not just probabilistic.

[TCO]

bra ket