pittsburghjoe Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 Everywhere I turn "superposition" has its hand in making things weird.
swansont Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 Everywhere I turn "superposition" has its hand in making things weird. Depends on what qualifies as weird. Is diffraction of particles weird? It's not classical behavior, but it's not dependent on superposition.
pittsburghjoe Posted December 1, 2016 Author Posted December 1, 2016 Particles acting like a wave are not in a superposition state?
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Particles acting like a wave are not in a superposition state? Not always. And it's not so much particles acting as waves they are neither particle nor wave. They're something else.
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 Not always ..you mean when it's not in superposition anymore ::rolls eyes:: And, tell me, what proof do you have that a particle doesnt morph between states?
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Not always ..you mean when it's not in superposition anymore ::rolls eyes:: And, tell me, what proof do you have that a particle doesnt morph between states? When it's not in a superposition of states. Which is quite often. Swansont gave a good example. Well "Simultaneous observation of the quantization and the interference pattern of a plasmonic near-field." Nature Communications 02 March 2015 There is also no evidence of morphing which if nothing else would mean you could catch it in the "wrong" state.
swansont Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Not always ..you mean when it's not in superposition anymore ::rolls eyes:: And, tell me, what proof do you have that a particle doesnt morph between states? The diffraction equation just depends on momentum. No dependence on superposition.
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 Momentum ..but can't be observed at the time. Are you playing games with me? When it's not in a superposition of states. Which is quite often. Swansont gave a good example. Well "Simultaneous observation of the quantization and the interference pattern of a plasmonic near-field." Nature Communications 02 March 2015 There is also no evidence of morphing which if nothing else would mean you could catch it in the "wrong" state. Doesn't the double slit experiment suggest to you that the particle is physically changing states when observed?
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 No, it implies to me that our ape descended brains have no analogy for what is going on and these things are something different, neither wave not particle but something else.
swansont Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Momentum ..but can't be observed at the time. Are you playing games with me? That's vague. You can determine the momentum to a fairly high degree. Doesn't the double slit experiment suggest to you that the particle is physically changing states when observed? No, it doesn't. It suggests that it has a wavelegth of h/p. An electron has no internal states that could be placed in a superposition, and it diffracts and interferes. Wave phenomena and superposition are not the same thing.
Mordred Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Think of superposition as the sum of all possibilities. All possible positions and quantum waveforms. When you make a measurement you narrow the possibilities to 1.
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 I would be okay with Wave phenomena being an optical illusion ..except the path actually changes. Think of superposition as the sum of all possibilities. All possible positions and quantum waveforms. When you make a measurement you narrow the possibilities to 1. That's fine, it's still the cause of all weirdness though.
Mordred Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) No its weird as it is poorly understood. However if you understand superposition as a probability distribution function. That when you make a measurement even if the measurement doesn't cause interference limits the probabilities. Nothing weird about that at all. This occurs in numerous statistical situations. Take a particle it has a statistical probabiliy of being at a given location on a waveform. That wave form is the probability wave. Its amplitude is determined by the percentage chance of the particle being on the peak of the amplitude. Say 75 % chance but the particle has a chance of being anywhere on the probability wave. Once you measure the particles position. You now know the location. So you have reduced the particle position probabilities to 1. Your not interfering with its position. You interfere with the probability of being in any other position. Edited December 2, 2016 by Mordred
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 yes, let us ignore the fact that it takes conscientiousness to interfere ..nope, nothing weird about that.
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 I would be okay with Wave phenomena being an optical illusion ..except the path actually changes. To be blunt the universe doesn't care what you, nor I or any other ape descendent would be OK with. yes, let us ignore the fact that it takes conscientiousness to interfere ..nope, nothing weird about that. It doesn't require consciousness. That's a popsci misconception.
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 It doesn't require consciousness. That's a popsci misconception. It requires it for single particle experiments
Mordred Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 yes, let us ignore the fact that it takes conscientiousness to interfere ..nope, nothing weird about that. Thats a bit of a fallacy. Just because we choose to measure something isn't weird.
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 Just because we choose to measure something isn't weird. I'm detecting a bit of denial. You know QM needs updated to handle this.
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 I'm detecting a bit of denial. You know QM needs updated to handle this. I'm detecting misunderstanding. 1
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ...
Mordred Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) If your referring to quantum consciousness your not dealing with superposition of the two slit experiment itself. Quantum consciousness is literally to determine how our consciousness works. rough analogy until you make a choice all possible choices are in superposition. Not much different from "until you make a measurement all possible outcomes are valid" ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ... Is there a purpose behind this? Edited December 2, 2016 by Mordred
swansont Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 I would be okay with Wave phenomena being an optical illusion ..except the path actually changes. Your approval is not required. Wave phenomena actually happen.
pittsburghjoe Posted December 3, 2016 Author Posted December 3, 2016 yep, it happens ..with the help of superposition
swansont Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 I'm detecting a bit of denial. You know QM needs updated to handle this. QM needs to reflect how nature behaves, not your misunderstanding of it. 1
pittsburghjoe Posted December 3, 2016 Author Posted December 3, 2016 Does the Wave phenomena of an unmeasured free particle match anything on the Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum?
Recommended Posts