Quantum Physics Got Me Funked Up

1nspire said:
Speaking out of my ass but a couple of thoughts are running through my head.

I agree that your eyes can't emit waves but wouldn't light waves, sound waves and any other wave interfere or contaminate the experiment since we are talking quantum.

Speaking of contamination, wouldn't you need a complete sterile, static free environment plus a complete vacuum to accurately measure quantum experiments.

In the test mentioned were all alloys used to fling the particles demagnetized? If the slit plates where alloy where they demagnetized?

Plus we have not hit on the effects gravity may have.
Click to expand...

no. Sound would have nothing to do with this, and light would have to be 100% head on collisions of particles, which in a proper experimental setting would not happen. And no you wouldn't need a sterile setting like you say, it can't hurt but it doesn't help. It's an electron beam and the pattern that matters, if one electron is deflected out of billions, the result over the duration of infinity would still be the same.

The slits are not made of metal. I have performed this experiment myself many times. It is two slits a few mm apart in a card, or paper, or something of that nature (it really doesn't matter). I've also performed it with a hexagonal carbon lattice, which gives a circular interference pattern.
 


The level of "observation" we're talking here is very, very small; small enough that there is probably a technical limitation being reached, similar to the usage of the Uncertainty Principle.
 
Supergeek said:
The level of "observation" we're talking here is very, very small; small enough that there is probably a technical limitation being reached, similar to the usage of the Uncertainty Principle.
Click to expand...

this isn't really it either.

Wave function collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In simplified terms, it is the condensation of physical possibilities into a single occurrence, as seen by an observer"

Basically, before observation, *all* of the events are happening at the same time and position. Upon observation, only one occurs. It's not a technical limitation.
 
-God- said:
I was joking papajohn56. :D

You of all people should have noticed that after the words, "Can all be explained very simply..." I was hoping for a bite, because most of what i've tried to read and understand may as well be written in Cantonese. ;)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to papajohn56 again.
Click to expand...
Ahah should've caught it. I was just pointing out about the cat experiment, it's funny because it's taken as he meant it that way
 
I like how there is one guy who has actually studied physics and a bunch of people going, "nah can't be its the microwave in the apartment next store dood". Enjoyed reading your responses papajohn, that and the amazing garlic butter sauce you bring with your pizza's, simply amazing.
 
Ok papa, I hear you. So for the sake of arguing in the video the dude mentioned that electrons where particles. Particles being little specks of matter. My understanding is that the electron beam is blasting these particles across the room or across a span of room air. Since room air is made up of atoms wouldn't the electrons bang into them? With enough room air atoms as resistance the waves created by the beam would be similar to a bullet being shot through water and thus be ripples.

My point being that the particle is still governed by a law of physics and not a law of physics in its own right.
 
1nspire said:
Ok papa, I hear you. So for the sake of arguing in the video the dude mentioned that electrons where particles. Particles being little specks of matter. My understanding is that the electron beam is blasting these particles across the room or across a span of room air. Since room air is made up of atoms wouldn't the electrons bang into them? With enough room air atoms as resistance the waves created by the beam would be similar to a bullet being shot through water and thus be ripples.

My point being that the particle is still governed by a law of physics and not a law of physics in its own right.
Click to expand...

Unlikely. The empty space that exists between orbitals and nuclei is plenty of room for a much smaller particle like an electron to pass. Plus, air is full of molecules that are electronically stable, meaning they aren't going to accept a new electron into their orbitals, so that rules that out too.

Particle collisions probably do occur though, but when you're firing a beam of however many thousands, millions, etc of electrons, not all of them will do that. Most will pass through free space.

What you're not seeing, is that the laws of physics on this level are different. Newtonian mechanics really doesn't apply like you're used to, it's a whole different system on this scale. Particles all behave like waves. Look up the de Broglie wavelength.

After all, light is a particle and a wave, right? Why isn't light colliding with air and being stopped? Light has momentum, it can collide with other particles. Just because it's massless doesn't mean it doesn't have a momentum.
 
uplinked said:
this statement astutely summarizes the common theme underlying your entire post history here.

it's like you wrote your whole autobiography in just one sentence.
Click to expand...

rofl i was thinking the exact fucking same thing once i read that post
 
Andrew Scherer said:
Got an e-mail from a friend about something trippy called the "Double Slit Experiment".

"Ok check it out, the results appear on a screen. The particles are basically part of a beam of light being shot through 2 slits. When they do not have tools of observation actually looking at the individual particles, the particles act like waves and occupy multiple spaces at once. Basically
the matter acts as though it is in all of it's potential positions (which in itself is beyond incredible). When the particles are viewed while moving, they act like you would expect them to, with a finite location and reaction. They go from point: A to point: B. If they are not viewed, they go from point: A to point: every other letter in the alphabet times a zillion. It is beyond anyone's understanding at this point in time."


YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.
Click to expand...

If you really, really, really, want to blow your mind, take some time and read this: Quantum Mechanics Implies That The Universe is a Computer Simulation

It's not as complicated as it seems upon first look. Just read it. Enjoy mind being blown.
 
Ok papa, I am going to throw one more thing out there about this experiment.

Thermal interference from zinging particles through room air. Like with our atmosphere the thermosphere has less molecules so they move around more quickly thus generating heat. In the experiment blasting particles through a denser medium would in my opinion generate heat that would effect the outcome of the experiment.

My question on this experiment still falls back on the aspect of a vacuum plus outcomes based on thermal properties. I'm curious how this experiment would result by using different room temperatures, perhaps remove room air by inserting different gases.
 
1nspire said:
Ok papa, I am going to throw one more thing out there about this experiment.

Thermal interference from zinging particles through room air. Like with our atmosphere the thermosphere has less molecules so they move around more quickly thus generating heat. In the experiment blasting particles through a denser medium would in my opinion generate heat that would effect the outcome of the experiment.

My question on this experiment still falls back on the aspect of a vacuum plus outcomes based on thermal properties. I'm curious how this experiment would result by using different room temperatures, perhaps remove room air by inserting different gases.
Click to expand...

If it did, it'd be so infinitesimally small it wouldn't make a difference. A small beam of electrons wouldn't cause that. Heating up the electron gun itself would affect it more. Remember, electrons are so small and so much lighter than an entire atom:

Mass of electron: 9.1*10^-31 kg
Mass of proton: 1.67*10^-27 kg

4 orders of magnitude difference here. That'd be like a tennis ball crashing into a several ton wrecking ball expecting it to cause a lot of heat in the collision.
 
i have a theory about it, i realize its stupid, but it helps me sleep at night.

They're talking about electrons here. I don't think you can stop or bounce back an electron only slightly change its course. So shooting it through some "slits" would really only change its course on the proton dense areas causing an interference pattern on the other side.

Please ruin my day and explain papajohn :)
 
Deliguy said:
i have a theory about it, i realize its stupid, but it helps me sleep at night.

They're talking about electrons here. I don't think you can stop or bounce back an electron only slightly change its course. So shooting it through some "slits" would really only change its course on the proton dense areas causing an interference pattern on the other side.

Please ruin my day and explain papajohn :)
Click to expand...

Electrons can be stopped or bounced back, it just depends what they hit or what causes it. The interference pattern just comes from particles behaving like waves really, if you do the double slit experiment with light it reacts the same, not due to proton density or anything.

Matter wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humans have a calculable wavelength even, it's just so small it's not noticeable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Refrozen
Highly recommending [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375412883?ie=UTF8&tag=40e9-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0375412883]Fabric of the Cosmos[/ame] if you're interested in this stuff. Great book. Easy read. VERY interesting.
 
Refrozen said:
Highly recommending Fabric of the Cosmos if you're interested in this stuff. Great book. Easy read. VERY interesting.
Click to expand...

Rehhh I'm not much a Brian Greene fan honestly. String theory to me is real iffy, and there really is a divide amongst physicists about it. Nothing has ever been verified, and there really is no way of verifying any of it at least right now. It's interesting stuff, no doubt, but take it with a definite grain of salt.
 
i've always thought about it like this:

observation requires interaction. you can't get information about the state of something (ie measure it) without interacting with it somehow. the transfer of information that occurs during the measurement interaction is what causes the change.

this could explain why the interference patterns, instead of simply collapsing, can deteriorate depending on the amount of information measured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back