Observation and Reality

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Bowser, Dec 30, 2016.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,582
    That is curious, and hard to believe. I would look for an explanation that was independent of the observer, and would look for a long time, before I concluded that it was dependent on the observer, lol. The single particle two slit experiment does just that; for each individual particle, the observation is that it exhibits both wave and particle nature at the same time. I think the mysteries will be cracked and that a consensus on the atomic and quantum world will be understood.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,394
    Likewise.
     
    quantum_wave likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,971
    Mod note:

    danshawen
    has been warned not to post pseudoscience to the Science sections of sciforums.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,394
    And what, exactly, James R., moderator of this science forum, is this post supposed to be, exactly? Belongs in the religion forum if you ask me. Paraphrasing, "Would not preclude G-d as Chief Collapser of Wave Functions..." Really, what would someone like Richard Dawkins have to say about the scientific status of that remark? And also, not worth further discussion on a scientific forum.

    Would it help if I prefaced my remarks, supported by the links I provide, as a personal preference?

    It does not appear that you are an expert on this subject, however much you claim to have read about it. Obviously, I have misjudged my audience, and for that you have my apology.

    I regret also having felt the need to collapse your wave function. I will not trouble you again.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,582
    I would like to speculate about the nature of a wave-partilce, if the mainstream doesn't have an interpretation of QM that addresses how the individual photon or electron can display both its wave characteristic and its particle characteristic at the same time. Would that be allowed here?

    In the absence of a mainstream consensus, it doesn't seem unreasonable that speculation about a new interpretation of the nature of a wave-particle might be radical. Such speculation might include "proposing a pretty radical re-interpretation of just about everything we know, and that 'everything' already has quite a bit of supporting evidence and math on its side", but I understand that we advance the mainstream gradually, and laymen exploring a simple speculative idea about wave-particles here in Physics and Math isn't likely to cause even a tiny ripple of concern in the professional community, which is already deep into speculation on the topic.

    Let's do it here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,376
    It can and does all the time. In atomic emission spectroscopy, we observe light from atoms in excited electronic states, radiating photons of a set frequency as the drop down to a lower energy state. This emission can be either stimulated (more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulated_emission ), in which case there is an interaction with another photon, or spontaneous (more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission ), in which case the interaction is with vacuum fluctuations, but in neither case does a second electron participate in the process.

    Read the links I have given and you will no second electron is mentioned.

    If, on the other hand, you think you have an authoritative source supporting the need for a second electron, kindly provide a reference, so that this benighted chemist can see the error of his ways. But don't give me any more of your homespun crap about "bound energy", I want to see an authoritative source before taking your claim seriously.

    Also, if you claim entanglement is required to account for results observed in the double slit experiment, please where the conventional explanation, which does not involve it, fails.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,376
    Don't be an idiot, Dan. James (and I) have been commenting on the contention that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function, which is a claim that some people actually do make and which we were discussing in this thread. If you have the brains to read his post correctly, you will see that God comes into it to illustrate the absurdities you can get into with a scientific interpretation that really maintains such a thing.

    Are you off your meds or something? You seem to be going through one of your daft phases again.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,376
    I don't see why you can't explore interpretations of wave-particle duality here, so long as they don't contradict existing QM without providing justification for doing so. I would suggest avoiding the term "mainstream" however, if you possibly can, as it seems to me that term has unfortunately come to be associated with paranoid cranks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I am aware for example that things such as hidden variable theories were developed by those in the "determinist" camp (along with Einstein - "God does not play dice", etc), but my understanding is that these have fallen from favour.

    I suppose if you go completely off-piste you would get moved to Alt Theories, though.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,582
    Thanks for weighing in. Let's see if James R agrees.

    I do like to use "consensus", and I take your sense of how a reference to "mainstream" can get things off path early, leaving members to equate it to AltTheory. But I'm seeing leeway when there is no consensus, and I think that is the case in regard to the nature of the particle that is defined as a wave-particle because of observed wave-particle duality.
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,169
    What would happen if 10 people would observe the " wave function " at the exact same moment in time ?
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,376
    Fair enough. I must say, though, that what strikes me in debates on this is that the determinists want everything to be a particle and to show that it is the sq. rt. probability density wave (if I can call it that for shorthand) is somehow an incomplete formulation of nature. But it seems to me that the notion of a "particle" is equally odd. It is a mathematical simplification used since Newton's time to avoid the complexity of shape, distributed mass and so on. Explaining the world in terms of pointlike mathematical objects seems to me suspiciously like an approximation technique, to make the maths more tractable. Why should the world reduce eventually to pointlike particles?

    Given my "Russian dolls" view of physical theories, I have myself reached an accommodation with QM and am not very bothered by the wave-particle duality. The idea of Fourier transforms - as in explanations of the Uncertainty Principle - seems to me to do a decent job already. But I'm only a chemist, of course.
     
  15. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,169
    I reiterate my post #70 ;

    What would happen if 10 people would observe the " wave function " at the exact same moment in time ?
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,582
    Thanks, good post.

    And I'm a mere layman, but I do appreciate Russian dolls, and can agree with the complexity that "reality" has a way of revealing begrudgingly.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,582
    Seriously, I think the answer is closing in on being a consensus, lol. The result would be the same as if no one was observing.
     
  18. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,169
    The wave-particle duality is not really a problem . As exchemist suggests , in his post #71 , it is about density.

    And the duality becomes evident when the density is rarified.

    Much like the ocean wave crest.

    The wave is the density of H2O, the crest of the wave breaks the wave into particles ; of H2O.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,376
    It's about density in the minds of some, certainly.
     
  20. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,169
    Yours you mean ? Someone else , exchemist ?
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,582
    Don't get me started, lol. Without some acknowledgement from management, my speculations are out of place here ... and lengthy. I have to start by describing what a wave-particle even is. There is no consensus as far as I know, and I am thinking about a physical description of a particle that has both location and momentum. But the location is a pretty iffy scenario compared to the standard model, and any physical description will immediately violate what seems to be the established consensus.

    But it is a wave-particle, with characteristics of both at all times, until it interacts, and then one or the other characteristics is the most evident, based on the type of measurement/observation.
     
  22. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,169
    Location and momentum , Hmmmm

    If I start a mustang from a position on the road , accelerate , one mile , and say after one mile it is going 100mph. So you can predict where it will be in another mile ; but if the car keeps accelerating you don't know where , the position of the car will be .
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,582
    Motor Daddy would love that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     

Share This Page