Membrain

Got it, thanks. That's interesting. So we know we have an electron in a specific location as we fire it from the gun (I'm assuming), and we have the same electron in a specific location on the target screen, but between those two locations the location of the electron is probabilistic? I could visualize that.

Hmm, dang. Can anyone confirm this? To re-explain: Here's a page with some images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment 1. First, let's do this one electron at a time. Actually we only need to talk about one electron. 2. The electron goes through the double slits and is like a wave interacting with itself, yes? 3. When the self-interfering waves hit the target screen they show up as a single point. 4. There appears an "interference pattern" on the target screen made up of the accumulating points. So my confusion comes from some apparent consistencies. A: The electron seems to behave in at least one consistent way in that the self-interfering waves create a consistent "interference pattern". By this I mean, that after an electron goes through he slits, and a period of time passes where the electron has dissipated, the next electron comes, and when it passes through the slits it sets up the same interference pattern as the previous electron. B. This implies that the waves from each slit are created at the same time for every electron, with the same "energy" (or whatever you want to call it) for each wave, in such a way as to accurately create the interference pattern. Because if the electron did something different, it would create a different interference pattern, yes? C. Since the artists rendering of the self-interfering waves seems to show the waves bulging out towards the front, wouldn't that mean that the waves would collapse consistently at those most forward points? By that I mean, the waves to the left-most and right-most would never reach the target screen because the center "bulge" would always collapse the wave first. That's about it. Another question is: if all the waves (for a single electron) "touched" the target screen at the same time, doesn't it make sense that the collapse points would appear random since you have all the waves collapsing at the exact same time? Again, if the waves coming through the slits are consistent, and if they interact with the target screen at exactly the same time, wouldn't the apparent random collapse points make sense? Perhaps I'm repeating myself too much, but I want to get as much out there as I could. Thanks!

Quick question on the double slit experiment for anyone to answer: Do the electrons collapse back into a point on the target screen because they are in affect being measured? If so, I also don't understand how the electron knows where to collapse. It seems to me that the illustrations show "waves" interacting with themselves and then creating this "interference pattern". I guess the way I'm looking at it is: if the electron wave did not collapse, would the target screen show the imprint of the entire "interference pattern" all at once, just getting stronger and stronger over time? Thanks for the help. I searched and was unable to find this question answered.

OK, thanks. I looked at the EPR Paradox and have a question: Concerning entangled electrons: I have an interesting metaphor for the indeterminate positions of the entangled electrons involving flipping coins. Let's say that two entangled electrons are created. My understanding is that they are in an indeterminate states until you measure one of them and then the other one takes on the opposite spin of the first. This made me think about flipping a coin: when a coin is flipped it is in an indeterminate state until it stops moving, and then we can determine its state. I saw a similarity in that the electrons can be considered to be like coins endlessly flipping until we measure them, and then like a coin come to rest, we can determine a state. But prior to the measurement they are like coins spinning. Does anything about this make sense when it comes to uncertainty, probability, and indeterminacy? And forgive me if this is really dumb!

OK, thanks. Now I'll try to combine everything together: Is the electron ambiguous to the degree that we are uncertain about it? And is the ambiguity and uncertainty based upon measurement? So if we are not measuring it, it is 100% ambiguous and 100% uncertain? Or, are we even uncomfortable with making ambiguity and uncertainty the same thing?

Concerning the "uncertainty" of quantum mechanics: is the uncertainty referring to our uncertainty where the electron is between measurements? Or also, perhaps our uncertainty as to the electrons real "shape" and "movement" since when we try to measure, we influence the measurement?

OK, thanks. Now I'll try to work this into the original question: Does uncertainty refer to us being uncertain where an electron is. To use your terms: Is the electron ambiguous?

Not to be pushy, but is there a definitive answer to the question? Yes, No, Not Sure or Other?

So is what you are saying: The wave function is a description of the electron, but the wave function is a not an electron This makes sense, yes?

This is where it seems like there is sort of a philosophical question being answered. Are quantum mechanics physicists saying that, "If we can't measure something, it doesn't exist"? If so, this to me seems like an ontological leap. Please everyone, feel free to chime in on this question.

Please allow me to parse your language a bit to see if I can't gain some understanding. Some of what you say confuses me not so much due to jargon as much as perhaps what appears to be contradictions. For example, the sentence "The wave function is a description of the electron, not the electron itself". I paraphrase this to say: The wave function is a description of the electron, and the wave function is a not a description of the electron Confusing, eh? So am I interpreting something incorrectly? Thanks again for patience. The questions come from a lack of understanding and nothing more.

OK, a couple more questions: I thought the particle was considered to be an un-collapsed wave, and as such behaves like a wave (which ripples through both slits and interferes with itself on he other side). Doesn't a wave have a definite existence? Like a water wave?

Thanks everyone for your responses. Please pardon me for not answering each post individually, but I think I've come up with another question that gets closer to my goal: Two things: One, it sounds like "uncertainty" has something to do with "probability" in that since we can't accurately measure sub-atomic wave/particles we have to take a probabilistic, statistical approach which leads to scientists being "uncertain" as to what the sub-atomic particles are doing at any one time. The sub-atomic particles are not themselves "uncertain"; they have a definite existence within reality, we just can't measure them with certainty. And two, since science only gives validity to things that are provable and measurable, scientists have take the extra step of saying, "Since sub-atomic particles are inherently not measurable (at least not accurately), they can be considered to be inherently indeterminate". To clarify: I think scientists think that to assert a determinacy about sub-atomic particles is something that is unmeasurable, and that it is only "philosophical" to talk about it. This is apparently almost heretical in science. Saying that something is "philosophical" seems to be comparable to saying that something is non-scientific. So is the close® to the truth?

OK, this is my second post! After learning a thing or two about "probability" on my first thread, I wanted to ask about "uncertainty". For starters, when it came to probabilities, it seems clear that the electron was in an uncertain place. Is this what is meant by "uncertainty" within quantum mechanics? Thanks for your patience in advance.

OK thanks very much (all). I will now start a thread called "Question about Uncertainty". Thanks again.