Can an electron be in two places at the same time?

[hardalee]

So the wave is halved then? If that is the case then you just have two effects from 1 cause, which is just a fork.

I'm starting to waver on my original poisition that an electron can be two places at once, that is the "whole" wave packet or probability wave, not just a piece of it.

My first thought was it is nowhere in particular, just a set of probabilitys as to its position. This would account for the reasults of the double slit experiment without observation of the electrons actual position.

I think I'll sit back a while and watch others hash it out while I think about it.

 

[Reiku]

Whether electrons actually can or cannot exist in two places at the same time is kind of an irrelevant question. What matters in practice is whether nature behaves as if this were the case, and the answer to such a question is a definite "yes", based on the existing experimental data.

Is it irrelevant though? I guess you are right though, in practive it is whether nature behaves this way or not. But what do we mean when we say a ''particle is at two locations simultaneously?''

Well as you know, we must be talking about it's wave function. The real question is, is the projection of states in the superpositioning of the wave function a real physical phenomenon, or just an ethereal distribution of possibilities?

Is a particle in two places only in a non-physical sense and totally statistical, or is the particle physically in two places at once?

 

[Reiku]

Let me make you think of it another way.

I assume we will both agree that no Eigenstate of a system is determined until an observation is made on the system, right? (This obviously includes particle, atomic molecular) organization, then the wave function determines the possibilities of it's trajectory and momentum over a given spacetime volume. Even though it is said it travels like a wave (and there is suffice evidence suggesting this is a true statement) it still end up at a final location as a single ''dot'', as found in the Double Slit experiment.

So even though we might say it is a physical event, only one physical eigenstate is ever observed, so what good does it even allow us to even ask the question at all?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

How is this relevant?

What is the wave-aspect of the electron a wave of?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TI1M3abAM8&feature=related

[video]
... that's the first one, watch the whole series, and the questions.
... it's a more rigorous description than your reference and more accessible than Lichte (above).

Executive Summary:
The wave is of probability amplitudes, the square of which is a probability density function. A probability is an expression of odds - it is not a physical object. What we are saying is that the process that ends up correctly describing the resulting diffraction pattern is mathematically equivalent to that of a wave. That does not mean it is physically the same thing as a wave.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Technically speaking, every object that has a volume greater than zero is in more than one place at one time.

For example, we call the object we live IN...Earth. The "earth" object has a volume and size greater than zero. So if you ask, can the earth be in two places at the same time,,I say yes, because earth is in more than one point in space at the same time. Likewise for the electron.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Well, I have an idea that the electron first travels down creating a single bow shock wave, and a particle. The bow shock wave is then divided by the filament to become two bow shock waves which fork. The Electron hits the detector. The bow shock waves bounce back up in front of the second particle interfering with it. The second particle's bow shock is now split up, and bounces back, and then the third particle is effected by these bow shocks.. etc.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Pincho, you already have a thread in the alternative theories forum about that. If you're not answering the question with anything other than self advertisement don't answer. Basically your 'ideas' have no place in this subforum.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho, you already have a thread in the alternative theories forum about that. If you're not answering the question with anything other than self advertisement don't answer. Basically your 'ideas' have no place in this subforum.

Bow shocks have been observed, not from electrons though, but from suns. I don't see why they can't be scaled down. And observable evidence is allowed in here.

 

[Reiku]

Well, I have an idea that the electron first travels down creating a single bow shock wave, and a particle. The bow shock wave is then divided by the filament to become two bow shock waves which fork. The Electron hits the detector. The bow shock waves bounce back up in front of the second particle interfering with it. The second particle's bow shock is now split up, and bounces back, and then the third particle is effected by these bow shocks.. etc.

Wtf are you talking about?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Bow shocks from the Sun are formed by massive amounts of particles behaving in a coherent manner, like a plasma such as the solar wind, and interacting with electromagnetic fields produced by planets, other stars or the interstellar medium. This is a combination of fluid mechanics and electromagnetism on observed things like the solar wind. There's no evidence for the aether and there's no evidence for your claims about the aether. You implicitly admit it when you say "I don't see why they can't be scaled down". That isn't evidence, that's an argument from ignorance, ie "I can't see why it is false so it's justifiable". You then go on the mention observational evidence. Yes, it's allowed here and thus a discussion on something like the heliopause would be fine (though perhaps more appropriate for the cosmology forum). A discussion on a hypothetical bow shock in an unobserved medium based on absolutely nothing other than "You can't disprove it" isn't science.

As I said, you have a thread, an entire subforum, for your unjustified, arm waving, derivation-less, ignorant nonsense. I suggest you keep your musings about anything even slightly aether related there. A reply to this post is unnecessary, let the thread get back to topic.

 

[SciWriter]

Perhaps it is that the 'electron' is vibrating. Thinking of it this way was the first time I could better visualize superposition.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Bow shocks from the Sun are formed by massive amounts of particles behaving in a coherent manner, like a plasma such as the solar wind, and interacting with electromagnetic fields produced by planets, other stars or the interstellar medium. This is a combination of fluid mechanics and electromagnetism on observed things like the solar wind. There's no evidence for the aether and there's no evidence for your claims about the aether. You implicitly admit it when you say "I don't see why they can't be scaled down". That isn't evidence, that's an argument from ignorance, ie "I can't see why it is false so it's justifiable". You then go on the mention observational evidence. Yes, it's allowed here and thus a discussion on something like the heliopause would be fine (though perhaps more appropriate for the cosmology forum). A discussion on a hypothetical bow shock in an unobserved medium based on absolutely nothing other than "You can't disprove it" isn't science.

As I said, you have a thread, an entire subforum, for your unjustified, arm waving, derivation-less, ignorant nonsense. I suggest you keep your musings about anything even slightly aether related there. A reply to this post is unnecessary, let the thread get back to topic.

Based on the monitor image. I mean you are seeing a wave interference on the monitor right? So a bow shock is a wave, it's a direct comparison. I am comparing like with like. The thread is comparing electrons in two places at once.. there is nothing like that. I am actually the one who is sticking to actual observation, the rest of the thread is assumption.

 

[SciWriter]

From Discover or Scientific American…

Sir Roger Penrose has though about something for a very long time, ever since Paul Dirac told him in class about: “…the superposition principle, whereby very tiny objects could be in two places at the same time.”

This blurry flux even allows an “infinite” number of locations simultaneously. Yes, quantum mechanics works perfectly; but, what leads to the world at ordinary scales?

What collapses the quantum wave function?

Penrose believes he has identified the secret that keeps the quantum genie bottled up in the atomic world, a secret that was right in front of us all along.

It is gravity.

The flaw in the copenhagen interpretation that collapse is due to “observation” is that it has no basis in theory.

Gravity is the only one of the fundamental forces that physicists have been unable to explain in quantum terms, Einstein trying for 30 years, this perhaps being a clue that physicists are on the wrong path.

How would gravity affect an object small enough to exist in the borderland between the quantum world of atoms and the human world of visible objects?

There should be such a place where the quantum approaches the classical. An object about the size of a spec of dust might provide the perfect test.

At this scale, an object is small enough to be strongly affected by the rules of quantum mechanics but large enough to observe directly. If there was a way to observe the spec without disturbing it, we would see quantum strangeness laid bare: a macroscopic thing sitting in two places at once.

Quantum theory is incomplete because it ignores the effects of gravity. Gravity is so weak on atomic or subatomic scales that most physicists leave it out, but tiny objects should, by Einstein’s theory, produce space-time warps, too. If a dust spec is in two locations at once, each one should produce its own distortions in space-time, yielding two superposed gravitational fields; yet, it takes energy to sustain these dual fields.

The higher the energy required to sustain a system, the less stable it is, so, over time, it tends to settle back to its simplest, lowest, energy state, that is, to just one object producing one gravitational field.

If Penrose is right, gravity yanks objects, perhaps above a certain size, back into a single location, without any need to invoke observers or parallel universes.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Based on the monitor image. I mean you are seeing a wave interference on the monitor right?

LCD monitors involve emitting photons from crystal displays, they don't have interference patterns like the double slit experiment.

So a bow shock is a wave, it's a direct comparison.

No, it's a complete non-sequitor. Monitors have nothing to do with bow shocks.

I am actually the one who is sticking to actual observation, the rest of the thread is assumption.

This is the last time I'm saying it, troll somewhere else. Your claims are almost without exception nonsense. You're permitted to post crap in the alternative theories and pseudoscience subforums but not here. Your claims don't have evidence, you're deluding yourself. Delusional ignorance is to be kept to said subforums. Expect a warning if you keep this up.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Of course the monitor shows an interference pattern. Two electrons is without evidence, there is only one dot on the screen at a time, energy can't double, and the other example using two actual electrons creates two dots, and of course in that case the energy is allowed to double. I am the one posting evidence, and you are the one ignoring the evidence, and going for the none evidence version of two electrons. Why would you rather go for an electron being in two places at the same time, and ignore evidence against it? Because it would mean that you are wrong, and you are calling me a troll due to a bias. I am posting science in this thread, not my theory. I am posting that there is such thing as a bow shock (fact), and that there is a wave interference pattern on the monitor (fact). If I am not allowed to post facts, but the rest of the members are allowed to speculate, then that is totally not scientific.

Now, before you post any more of your imaginary ideas, look at the interference pattern for yourself....
http://www.hitachi.com/rd/research/em/doubleslit.html

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Firstly you're misrepresenting what the mainstream says. Secondly you have failed to provide any evidence for anything to do with bow shocks. No one denies a wave pattern is built up from individual electrons, in fact it's a triumph of physics that it can explain it.

I'm calling you a troll because nothing here has anything to do with bow shocks. Your entire argument is "Bow shocks appear with the Sun therefore I can imagine them happening here". That isn't evidence based science, it's random speculation.

I challenged you on your comments about bowshocks. Nothing you've provided has negated that challenge. Instead you just misrepresent people and science.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Firstly you're misrepresenting what the mainstream says. Secondly you have failed to provide any evidence for anything to do with bow shocks. No one denies a wave pattern is built up from individual electrons, in fact it's a triumph of physics that it can explain it.

I'm calling you a troll because nothing here has anything to do with bow shocks. Your entire argument is "Bow shocks appear with the Sun therefore I can imagine them happening here". That isn't evidence based science, it's random speculation.

I challenged you on your comments about bowshocks. Nothing you've provided has negated that challenge. Instead you just misrepresent people and science.

Well actually nearly all moving objects exhibit some form of frontal wave property, it's only when we get to Quantum Physics that we remove them. With a wave on a screen, and me saying "I think there is a bow shock." all I am saying is that there is a frontal wave.. bow being front, shock being a wave based on a particle that can travel 3 times around the Earth in a second.

If you can prove that an electron can be in two places at once, then prove it. Otherwise allow people to make suggestions. This thread is all about suggestions.. unless there is proof.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Technically speaking, every object that has a volume greater than zero is in more than one place at one time.

For example, we call the object we live IN...Earth. The "earth" object has a volume and size greater than zero. So if you ask, can the earth be in two places at the same time,,I say yes, because earth is in more than one point in space at the same time. Likewise for the electron.

What is the volume of an electron?

 

[Motor Daddy]

What is the volume of an electron?

Greater than zero, and that's all that matters.

 

[arfa brane]

Does an electron have charge volume, mass volume, or spin volume? Or is the volume some combination of all three?