hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Posted May 19, 2019 15 minutes ago, QuantumT said: What do you think the Large Hadron Collider is measuring? observed particles ..which are 3D
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: I hope you will feel ashamed if this idea takes hold and you were responsible closing this thread. Can I assume this means you (a) have no evidence and (b) cannot show us the equation you claimed?
QuantumT Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 1 minute ago, hipster doofus said: observed particles ..which are 3D As far as I am aware, they are not measured until and after they collide. That's the whole point of the collider.
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Posted May 19, 2019 How do you write an equation for wave collapse? My claim doesn't require proof when every quantum experiment ever done has already proved it. 14 minutes ago, Strange said: The wave equation describes properties in three dimensional space. If it was really 3D ..don't you think we would be able to see it?
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 14 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: If it was really 3D ..don't you think we would be able to see it? What is that you claim we can't see?
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: superposition We can see things in superposition. Why do you think we can't? It doesn't even have to be particles: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-microphone/
studiot Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: superposition This is now the third time of asking my question about your view on superposition. Since you are in clear breach of the rules here by not offering any sort of reply, despite plenty of opportunity, I will be reporting this thread for closure.
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 10 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: superposition I think studiot has a good point. Can you tell us what you think superposition means? (And why you think it can't be observed) It sounds as if this whole half-baked idea might be based on a profound misunderstanding.
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Posted May 19, 2019 (edited) what is there to know? superposition is an unobserved/unmeasured particle Edited May 19, 2019 by hipster doofus
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 Just now, hipster doofus said: what is there to know? superposition is an unobserved/measured particle Can you provide a reference to this definition?
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Posted May 19, 2019 my core is the double slit experiment. derive it from that
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 Just now, hipster doofus said: my core is the double slit experiment. derive it from that We observe particles in the double slit experiment. Please provide a source for your definition.
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Posted May 19, 2019 (edited) I feel like you are trying to trap me. You and I both know when unobserved particles go through the double slit they produce interference ..meaning they are in wave format Edited May 19, 2019 by hipster doofus
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 Just now, hipster doofus said: I feel like you are trying to trap me. No. I am just asking you for a source that supports your definition of superposition. This is simply because it is not the usual definition (by a long way). We can put particles (and macroscopic objects) in a superposition of states then observe those objects. The idea that things suddenly become invisible because they are in a superposition is just ludicrous. I mean, Schrödinger's cat was invented as an example of how strange superposition is, but no one has ever claimed that the cat becomes invisible before. So, again: what is your source? If you made it up yourself, just say that. If you got it from somewhere then provide the source
studiot Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 14 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: what is there to know? superposition is an unobserved/unmeasured particle This is clear unadulterated rubbish. A single particle (you did say' an') or a single anything else cannot be in superposition with anything else, since there is nothing else to be in superposition with. It takes two to tango.
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Posted May 19, 2019 A single particle goes through the double slit and interferes with itself (in wave format). While it's a wave ..it's in superposition, we can not see it.
studiot Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: ..it's in superposition In superposition with what exactly ? You are simply confirming my earlier suspicion that you have no idea what the term means, either in QM or elsewhere, and just using it because it sounds good.
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Posted May 19, 2019 (edited) Nice try to discredit me, someone with a new idea. I'm now wondering if it is you doesn't know what superposition means. I'm pretty sure you have seen the double slit experiment? Edited May 19, 2019 by hipster doofus
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 16 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: A single particle goes through the double slit and interferes with itself (in wave format). While it's a wave ..it's in superposition, we can not see it. This is confused, I don't know where to start. This single particle is always described by a wave function. That wave function might be described by a superposition of states. But we can observe it anyway. So almost every part of your statement seems to be based on a profound misunderstanding. 21 minutes ago, studiot said: This is clear unadulterated rubbish. A single particle (you did say' an') or a single anything else cannot be in superposition with anything else, since there is nothing else to be in superposition with. Surely, a single electron can be in a superposition of, say, spin up and spin down states? "For example, consider an electron with two possible configurations, up and down. This describes the physical system of a qubit. is the most general state. But these coefficients dictate probabilities for the system to be in either configuration. The probability for a specified configuration is given by the square of the absolute value of the coefficient." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition#Examples 8 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: Nice try to discredit me, someone with a new idea. I'm now wondering if it is you doesn't know what superposition means. I'm pretty sure you have seen the double slit experiment? You are doing an excellent job discrediting yourself. You don't need any help with that.
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Posted May 19, 2019 We can see it in math ..whoopty do. When have you seen superposition in real life?
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: We can see it in math ..whoopty do. When have you seen superposition in real life? I gave you an example earlier. If it couldn't be measured, how would we know it existed? Here is another example: https://quantumsciencephilippines.com/seminar/seminar-topics/SchrodingerCatAtom.pdf But talking of math, when are you going to show us the equation you promised in your opening post?
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Posted May 19, 2019 (edited) from your example Quote Thus, in the superposition of states the resonator is never really in two totally distinct places and in a Bose Einstein condensate ..come on man Edited May 19, 2019 by hipster doofus
studiot Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Strange said: Surely, a single electron can be in a superposition of, say, spin up and spin down states? Yes but there are two states available. The particle is then merely the vehicle for the superposition (of states). The particle itself is not in superposition with anything. Superposition is not possible for a single entity.- it is not a reflexive property. Superposition of 'particles' occurs for instance in the spatial superposition of electron orbitals (for electrons) I even gave a formula for it (which Doofus is steadfastly ignoring) it is called the linear combination of atomic orbitals or LCAO method. 7 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: When have you seen superposition in real life? Well I have used the superposition method of calculation many times in structural engineering. It is also widely used in electronic circuit theory and other branches of engineering. So widely in fact that it appears as a standard method in any standard textbook.
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Posted May 19, 2019 13 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: Nice try to discredit me, someone with a new idea. I'm now wondering if it is you doesn't know what superposition means. I'm pretty sure you have seen the double slit experiment? You keep referring to the double slit experiment but I am not sure what the relevance is. But it does suggest that you are confusing the concepts of "unobserved" and "unobservable". Also, the fact that observation removes the superposition ("collapses the wave function") does not mean that superposition is the same thing as being unobserved (or that the particle ceases to be described by a wavefunction). It's like saying that watching a movie lets you know the twist, but knowing the twist isn't the same as watching the movie. 7 minutes ago, studiot said: Yes but there are two states available. The particle is then merely the vehicle for the superposition (of states). The particle itself is not in superposition with anything. Good point. I see what you mean now. 9 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: from your example and in a Bose Einstein condensate ..come on man I don't know what you are trying to say. On 5/18/2019 at 6:38 PM, hipster doofus said: So to unify, we can write an equation that says Relativity is 3D and QM is 2D or less. Are you ready to do this yet?
Recommended Posts