02 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI believe it is a fallacy. It's rather arrogant to think so, and foolish because it would imply that quantum mechanics would be any different if there were no living things in the universe, which is silly of course.
I didn’t know that! This is the first I have heard of this. -if that is really the case then I don’t have any disagreement with this conventional wisdom in quantum physics 🙂
But I seem to distinctly remember from my university courses that the usual interpretation is that a conscious observer is required which I intuitively always thought ...[text shortened]... interpretation that a conscious observer is required simply a common fallacy in quantum physics?
02 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI agree 🙂
I believe it is a fallacy. It's rather arrogant to think so, and foolish because it would imply that quantum mechanics would be any different if there were no living things in the universe, which is silly of course.
If something always has to be observed by a conscious observer to exist with certain physical properties, then that would beg the question:
Who observed the first observer?
But if the word “observer” has a much more general wider non-standard meaning in this context that doesn’t require any kind of “consciousness” then I think this question becomes pretty much irrelevant.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe short answer to your question is "NO" No form of matter can be in 2 places at exactly the same time. 😏
A particle is not in 2 places at the same time, rather, the concept of "place" becomes blurred in the same sense as you can't assign a "place" to a wave in a rope.
Also, it's not that a particle can be a wave. A particle is always a wave.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think you're a bit off-base here. What our friend is referring to is the wave-particle duality of electrons. Sometimes an electron will exhibit wave-like behavior, and sometimes it will exhibit particle-like characteristics.
A particle is not in 2 places at the same time, rather, the concept of "place" becomes blurred in the same sense as you can't assign a "place" to a wave in a rope.
Also, it's not that a particle can be a wave. A particle is always a wave.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by divegeesterBecause sometimes, not really another way to put this, but sometimes a particle decides to be a particle, and sometimes it decides to be a wave. Its passage through two slits simultaneously demonstrates wave-like characteristics. Quantum mechanics - not that I pretend to have anything other than a very general knowledge - allows for some very tricky physical observations.
How is it possible for something to travel through two separate spaces at the same time as you describe. Is the photon moving through space/time in some way, or is it a more parsimonious explanation where the photon simply doesn't move in a single plane and direction?
If it can only be explained through complicated physics then I guess I'll pass as it's not a strength! Thanks anyway.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by sasquatch672But this is only something that's perceived. A particle always acts as a wave, it's just that sometimes you can also regard it as being a particle because the wave is confined to a small area (small with respect to the dimensions of the situation you're considering).
I think you're a bit off-base here. What our friend is referring to is the wave-particle duality of electrons. Sometimes an electron will exhibit wave-like behavior, and sometimes it will exhibit particle-like characteristics.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, a bit more accurately, particles exhibit some wave-like behavior, and waves exhibit some particle-like behavior. I mean if you want to get into M-Theory and The Elegant Universe, that's quite a different discussion. I'm trying to confine the discussion to the quantum mechanical question originally posed. The strict scientific discussion allows for subatomic particles to be accurately modeled as particles. And actually, when considering electrons, their orbitals when compared to their size are actually quite large.
But this is only something that's perceived. A particle always acts as a wave, it's just that sometimes you can also regard it as being a particle because the wave is confined to a small area (small with respect to the dimensions of the situation you're considering).
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by sasquatch672Yes, I'm arguing that while a partcile model may very well be very accurate in some situations, the particle is still a wave, physically.
Well, a bit more accurately, particles exhibit some wave-like behavior, and waves exhibit some particle-like behavior. I mean if you want to get into M-Theory and The Elegant Universe, that's quite a different discussion. I'm trying to confine the discussion to the quantum mechanical question originally posed. The strict scientific discussion allows ...[text shortened]... en considering electrons, their orbitals when compared to their size are actually quite large.
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraActually particles are always particles and the wave behaviour of matter can be explained in a statistical way.
Yes, I'm arguing that while a partcile model may very well be very accurate in some situations, the particle is still a wave, physically.
And the complimentary principle is known to be wrong for some time. No idea why it is still being discussed in many technical textbooks though... Maybe nostalgia... 😕
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by adam warlockWhat do you mean? How do you describe, say, interference in a "statistical" way?
Actually particles are always particles and the wave behaviour of matter can be explained in a statistical way.
And the complimentary principle is known to be wrong for some time. No idea why it is still being discussed in many technical textbooks though... Maybe nostalgia... 😕
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think that you mean interference as the one seen in double slit like experiments where what we usually think of particles are shoot through the slits.
What do you mean? How do you describe, say, interference in a "statistical" way?
In this case it is also well known that even if you shoot one particle at a time, eventually the interference pattern shows up. And in this case either one assumes that individual particles interfere with themselves or that the interference appears as a statistical byproduct. For me at least it is intellectually more satisfying to think that the pattern is from a statistical nature than to assume some kind of spooky self-interference effect is happening.
Have you ver read Feynman's QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter?