Particle-wave duality/ observation

[Moriarty]

This is some funky stuff. A particle that behaves like a wave that also behaves like a particle that knows when you're watching and changes it's behavior accordingly. Oh yeah, and one object can be in more than one place at a time. Makes perfect sense.

I recently read up on the (in)famous double slit experiment and it's about to give me a stroke. This is certainly a case of truth appearing stranger than fiction. I won't go into the details of the experiment because anyone who wants to know all about it can just google it.

My questions for the rational types:

Does this experiment, in your opinion, support the idea of entanglement or the multiverse theory?

Is it actually possible that the universe we live in is a range of infinite possibilities that becomes narrowed down to a finite point of existence by the mere act of observing it?

Can other universes exist within our own that aren't visible to us because we just aren't looking at them or for them?

When a single object is observed in multiple locations simultaneously (it's been photographed..google it), are we getting a glimpse into a parallel existence of that object?

Is the entire realm of quantum mechanics completely misunderstood bunk with a more sensible explanation?

[TheLastMohican]

Why must you suffer a stroke over such a thing?

I really cannot tell what I think on the subject, because it is only speculation, and we cannot really prove anything.

Just take it as a lesson on how little we actually know about the world around us.

[Vivid]

I believe it's possible. After all, we did used to think we were at the center of the universe. I wouldn't want to assume we know everything. It's unproven at this point, though, so I can't say one way or the other. I certainly would hate to ditch current quantum mechanics. I haven't read about a reason to do so, since it hasn't been disproved.


When a single object is observed in multiple locations simultaneously (it's been photographed..google it), are we getting a glimpse into a parallel existence of that object?


I want to see. What keywords do I google, though?

[azelismia]

Why must you suffer a stroke over such a thing?

I really cannot tell what I think on the subject, because it is only speculation, and we cannot really prove anything.

Just take it as a lesson on how little we actually know about the world around us.


I think there are some areas of proof of the validity of quantum mechanics. I don't remember which experiments they were. I'll have to google around a bit. I def. think it's all possible. Some of it more so than other parts perhaps but there is a hell of a lot we don't understand or even begin to comprehend yet, I think.

here's an article about the recent teleportation experiments. I think this is extremely neat stuff.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Moriarty]

Why must you suffer a stroke over such a thing? Just take it as a lesson on how little we actually know about the world around us.

Well, I'm curious enough to try to understand it. Like viusualizing the shape of the cosmos, it just takes a while for my 4 dimentional mind to cope with possibilities external to and above my baseline of reference. Where you may consider it a lesson in our limited understanding of the world around us, I take is as the cutting edge of a potential breakthrough that may transform our understanding.





Moriarty added to this post, 1 minutes and 8 seconds later...

I want to see. What keywords do I google, though?

You can find some neat vids on youtube if you search "quantum entanglement" or some photos thru google with "photo of a particle in two places at the same time".





Moriarty added to this post, 2 minutes and 24 seconds later...

here's an article about the recent teleportation experiments. I think this is extremely neat stuff.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I read about this in Scientific American a couple of months ago. They did a short interview with one of the scientists working on quantum computing concepts. I have to confess I was at first a little diappointed to learn that teleportation in the scientific worl doesn't mean what it means in the science fiction world.

Still, it is fascinating evidence of entanglement.

[azelismia]

Well, I'm curious enough to try to understand it. Like viusualizing the shape of the cosmos, it just takes a while for my 4 dimentional mind to cope with possibilities external to and above my baseline of reference. Where you may consider it a lesson in our limited understanding of the world around us, I take is as the cutting edge of a potential breakthrough that may transform our understanding.


Yeah I had the same expectations when I saw the headlines last year. oh well. That they're able to do anything at all along those lines is pretty tremendous. This is still so young. I mean, we're only 150 years out of the stone age really. given time I am sure great things will happen. It always befuddles me that these breakdowns didn't happen 2000 years ago though. they had primitive steam engines (the romans) and small batteries. So I never understood why it never went further than it did in development. Some of the mechanical advancements of the romans and egyptians were amazing. but then lost for 2k more years.

[Moriarty]

2K years, you say? It's almost as if everyone decided to turn their brains off and stop wondering how our world works and came into existence. <wink wink>

But, that's a separate matter in itself.

[azelismia]

2K years, you say? It's almost as if everyone decided to turn their brains off and stop wondering how our world works and came into existence. <wink wink>

But, that's a separate matter in itself.

You know, I never thought of it in that light before..... you're right. Sweet zombie jesus!

[Vortex]

Particle/Wave duality applies to just more than light. Its also not really contentious, theres been a lot of experiments regarding its nature. Sadly, I lack the required technical expertise to really go into it. Read wikipedia.

[antisocial one]

I think that when it comes to cosmos and questions about nature of reality, absolutly
everything is possible. I have readed about 20 books about this topic and after that S people dont get me at all.

[Moriarty]

Sadly, I lack the required technical expertise to really go into it. Read wikipedia.

I did. I'm still far from understanding the potential effect on the reality we observe. You might say I still sadly lack the technical expertise to really go into it. ;D

[TheLastMohican]

You know, I never thought of it in that light before..... you're right. Sweet zombie jesus!

Missing something here...Christianity couldn't have much of anything to do with that. Genesis was around for a long time before Jesus came.
The pagan religions were much less logical in their ideas of origins.
So saying that Christianity killed scientific research makes no sense. At that time science had little or nothing to do with Christianity, and they would not have affected each other (except when the Christian monks started funding their own science labs during the late middle ages).

[azelismia]

Except it wasn't widely practiced until about 2k years ago. that's when it began to really have a strong toehold thruout Europe before that it was more of small weird cult status.

[TheLastMohican]

Except it wasn't widely practiced until about 2k years ago. that's when it began to really have a strong toehold thruout Europe before that it was more of small weird cult status.

Christianity only started less than 2000 years ago. It steadily grew, and really exploded when Constantine declared it the official religion of the Roman Empire.

[sriv]

Wow. Fiction writers can't make this stuff up! Interesting.

I wouldn't make such a radical theory based on a single experiment or set of experiments, but I would not rule it out as a possibility either.

[curiousjane]

I've heard about the particle/wave thing ...

Simply amazing. Mind-boggling, really. Begs the questions, "what else do we not understand about this world?" and "could our perceptions shape reality?" and "what if what we see is not all there is?"

As for whether or not organized "Christian" religion has suppressed scientific process ... no doubt it has to some extent. But I would think that it would be the more mystical branches that are prone to doing that, as well as the ruling class mentality of the Middle Ages in which questioning the system was not encouraged.

[Aronnax]

I did. I'm still far from understanding the potential effect on the reality we observe. You might say I still sadly lack the technical expertise to really go into it. ;D

Do you understand wave interference, as in constructive/destructive interference for mechanical waves (like sound)? That's a good starting point without having to delve into messy quantum mechanics.

I understand it but it's difficult to explain, if you've got some background in classical physics I can save myself a decent chunk of essay.

[Arcani]

Does this experiment, in your opinion, support the idea of entanglement or the multiverse theory?

IMO it does to a limited extent. While wave/particle duality isn't a connection between multiple objects it does support the concept of measurement affecting the result. As for multiverse theory, I think duality is considered as the "natural" state of an object and its just how we observe and measure it that affects how we see it (please correct me if I'm wrong). So it's not really in a different space-time or universe if its acting as a particle at one time or a wave at another.

Is it actually possible that the universe we live in is a range of infinite possibilities that becomes narrowed down to a finite point of existence by the mere act of observing it?

Not sure how to even start contemplating this one :scared:

Can other universes exist within our own that aren't visible to us because we just aren't looking at them or for them?

I think its possible. If you've ever seen What the bleep do we know there is a segment where the film brings up an argument that the Native Americans could not see the Columbus's ships because they had no basis for understanding what a caravel was, so to cope their mind just blocked out the image. While that is more of a philosophical argument, perhaps something similar could be said about the universe(s) around us and how we perceive them.

When a single object is observed in multiple locations simultaneously (it's been photographed..google it), are we getting a glimpse into a parallel existence of that object?

Unless I missed the mark I believe you're referring to a variation of the double slit experiment where a electrons are fired through one at a time and interfere with themselves? If thats the case then it's not a parallel existence, it's a parallel probability, the particle has an equal chance of appearing in either location and so it can appear simultaneously in both (yeah I know, doesn't sound right). The real question there is where does the particle go when its not in either location and is it really the same particle when its in both?

Is the entire realm of quantum mechanics completely misunderstood bunk with a more sensible explanation?
A physics professor of mine once told me: "If anyone claims to understand quantum mechanics they are fooling themselves." This question is difficult to answer because I could say that the explanations are more sensible if we have a greater understanding and more knowledge of the phenomenon at hand. Look back to when people thought earth was the center of the universe. It was a very sensible explanation for why stars moved and why we had day and night; because everything revolved around us, but now that we know the heavens are rotating because the planet is rotating which one seems more sensible? As our knowledge improves so will our understanding and with that explanations that are sensible now will seem absurd and the absurd notions of today will make more sense.

In any case, ask me again in a year after I've finished my quantum mechanics courses :laugh:

[Moriarty]

LOL, good replies. It's just so....out there.

I'm reading Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" presently, and I found a quote in there by Darwin that seems interesting an appropriate to this thread:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

I do think humans will one day understand their world quite well. While true that we do not yet understand a great deal around us, there is also a great deal that we understand quite well. We'll get there.

[TheLastMohican]

LOL, good replies. It's just so....out there.


A half-serious question: Do you actually enjoy stressing yourself out over this stuff?

I think this might be a classic example of the clash between the N and J. We like to ponder wild theories and consider the possibilities, but after a while the J gets in the way. The J wants an answer, a decision, and it wants it now. Meanwhile the N clings to the puzzle, protesting, "But I'm not finished yet!"

Hence the stroke. ;D

[Moriarty]

A half-serious question: Do you actually enjoy stressing yourself out over this stuff?


HA! Actually, yes I do think this sort of thing is fun. For what it's worth (and this is highly debatable) I'm pretty evenly split between P and J. In matters of theoretical pondering, my P is definitely on top.

Simpler things, like indecisiveness over where to go for lunch, will bring my J out in a hurry.





Moriarty added to this post, 27 minutes and 56 seconds later...

I think its possible. If you've ever seen What the bleep do we know there is a segment where the film brings up an argument that the Native Americans could not see the Columbus's ships because they had no basis for understanding what a caravel was, so to cope their mind just blocked out the image. While that is more of a philosophical argument, perhaps something similar could be said about the universe(s) around us and how we perceive them.


Actually I have seen segments of this show but not the entire show. I wasn't sure how well grounded it was, so I didn't order it. Would you recommend it, and if so, should I apply a BS filter while watching it?

[TheLastMohican]

HA! Actually, yes I do think this sort of thing is fun. For what it's worth (and this is highly debatable) I'm pretty evenly split between P and J. In matters of theoretical pondering, my P is definitely on top.

Simpler things, like indecisiveness over where to go for lunch, will bring my J out in a hurry.

That's a good point on the categorization. My J is probably my weakest letter, but only on the average. For certain things, it manifests itself with great authority (when the answer to my question is of great importance), but when I think it won't hurt to stall a bit, my NP runs wild, and I end up pondering indefinitely. Thus I can appear to be P or J depending on what I am thinking about.

When the topic holds a lot of interest for both, the struggle ensues as detailed in my post above. This is in fact going on currently as I research evolutionary theory. My J says that I have to get around to my ID thread again, but my N says that I haven't explored enough yet to be sure of my opinions. I think my N is winning out here, though; while I still have reservations about evolution theory as it is presented, I continue to try to imagine how it might work out after all (I guess more on the details later). I don't know, but I find it intriguing to consider anyway. My general direction is (as it so often ends up being :rolleyes:) not in line with either normally accepted "side."

What I want to do is learn all there is to know about everything. But that might be out of my reach. :blank:

[Moriarty]

Do you understand wave interference, as in constructive/destructive interference for mechanical waves (like sound)? That's a good starting point without having to delve into messy quantum mechanics.

Yeah, I get the gist, but it's been about 15 years since I had to do more than just visualize the motion of waves. I'll have to brush up.

[Arcani]

Actually I have seen segments of this show but not the entire show. I wasn't sure how well grounded it was, so I didn't order it. Would you recommend it, and if so, should I apply a BS filter while watching it?

I enjoyed the film, it definitely brings up some interesting concepts and ways of thinking. While most of the scientists types I know, myself included (I'm working on a masters in optical physics) are skeptical about the film's credence in some of the scientific aspects, it is definitely worth a viewing for the philosophical aspects. If nothing else, it will make you think and view things with a different perspective.

[azelismia]

I enjoyed the film, it definitely brings up some interesting concepts and ways of thinking. While most of the scientists types I know, myself included (I'm working on a masters in optical physics) are skeptical about the film's credence in some of the scientific aspects, it is definitely worth a viewing for the philosophical aspects. If nothing else, it will make you think and view things with a different perspective.

it's bs.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Academic reaction

Scientists who have reviewed What the Bleep Do We Know!? have described distinct assertions made in the film as pseudoscience (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).[18] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-popsci-17) Amongst the concepts in the film that have been challenged are assertions that water molecules (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) can be influenced by thought,[3] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-einstein-2) that meditation can reduce violent crime rates,[8] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-ACS-7) and that quantum physics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) implies that "consciousness (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is the ground of all being (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)." The film was also discussed in a letter published in Physics Today (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that challenges how physics is taught, saying teaching fails to "expose the mysteries physics has encountered [and] reveal the limits of our understanding." In the letter, the authors write "the movie illustrates the uncertainty principle with a bouncing basketball being in several places at once. There's nothing wrong with that. It's recognized as pedagogical exaggeration. But the movie gradually moves to quantum 'insights' that lead a woman to toss away her antidepressant medication, to the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god, and on to even greater nonsense." It went on to say that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided," a situation which the authors attribute to how in the current teaching of quantum mechanics "we tacitly deny the mysteries physics has encountered."[5] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-Physics-Today-4)
Richard Dawkins (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), author of "The God Delusion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)" stated that "the authors seem undecided whether their theme is quantum theory or consciousness. Both are indeed mysterious, and their genuine mystery needs none of the hype with which this film relentlessly and noisily belabours us", concluding that the film is "tosh". Professor Clive Greated wrote that "thinking on neurology and addiction are covered in some detail but, unfortunately, early references in the film to quantum physics are not followed through, leading to a confused message". Despite his caveats, he recommends that people see the movie, stating, "I hope it develops into a cult movie in the UK as it has in the US. Science and engineering are important for our future, and anything that engages the public can only be a good thing." Simon Singh (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) called it pseudoscience and said the suggestion "that if observing water changes its molecular structure, and if we are 90% water, then by observing ourselves we can change at a fundamental level via the laws of quantum physics" was "ridiculous balderdash." According to João Magueijo (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), reader in theoretical physics at Imperial College, the film deliberately misquotes science.[6] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-boggle-5) The American Chemical Society (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)'s review criticizes the film as a "pseudoscientific (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) docudrama", saying "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought."[8] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-ACS-7)
The film's central theme -- that quantum mechanics suggests that a conscious observer can affect physical reality -- has also been refuted by Bernie Hobbs, a science writer with ABC Science Online. Hobbs explains, "The observer effect (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of quantum physics isn't about people or reality. It comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it's about the limitations of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles... this only applies to sub-atomic particles - a rock doesn't need you to bump into it to exist. It's there. The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too." Hobbs also discusses Hagelin's experiment with Transcendental Meditation and the Washington DC rate of violent crime, saying that "the number of murders actually went up." Hobbs also disputed the film's use of the ten percent myth (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).[7] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-ABC-6)
David Albert (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics are linked with consciousness. He says he is "profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness."[19] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-salon-18)
In the film, during a discussion of the influence of experience on perception, Candice Pert notes a story, which she says she believes is true, of Native Americans being unable to see Columbus (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)'s ships because they were outside their experience. According to an article in Fortean Times (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) by David Hambling, the origins of this story likely involved the voyages of Captain James Cook (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), not Columbus, and an account related by historian Robert Hughes which said Cook's ships were "...complex and unfamiliar as to defy the natives' understanding". Hambling says it is likely that both the Hughes account and the story told by Pert were exaggerations of the records left by Captain Cook and the botanist Joseph Banks (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Historians believe the Native Americans likely saw the ships but ignored them as posing no immediate danger.[20] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-19)

Other Critics

Skeptics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) such as James Randi (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) described the film as "a fantasy docudrama" and "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults."[21] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-Pigasus-20) The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) dismisses it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense," where "science distorted and sensationalized."[22] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-csicop-21) A BBC (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) reviewer described it as "a documentary aimed at the totally gullible."[23] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-BBC-movies-22)
Journalist John Gorenfeld, writing in [I]Salon, notes that the film's three directors are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which he describes as having been called a "cult."[19] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-salon-18)

[Moriarty]

Thank you. I think that about sums it up. No need to put it on my Amazon wish list.

[Arcani]

it's bs.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I'm not going to try to discredit your argument here because I agree with most of it. The bit about water molecules in particular is complete bs in my mind, but I still recommend the movie. When I first watched it I had enough exposure to quantum mechanics and science in general to understand that while the basis for many of their scientific arguments was solid, it was often misplaced, misrepresented, or not completely defined. I guess since I came to this understanding early in the film I was able to ignore the blatant misconceptions or fill in the blanks when the filmmakers just didn't quite add the BUT in there. As I said before, I think the film is worth viewing for the philosophical aspects and the perspective it gives (scientific support or not).

One last note on that wikipedia article. While I agree with most of the arguments brought forth, the topic is still (after 4 years I wish people would give it a rest...) being debated and is therefore locked from editing. I don't agree with all of the arguments brought against the movie and clearly I'm not alone...

Moriarty, you could always rent it...

[azelismia]

I'm not going to try to discredit your argument here because I agree with most of it. The bit about water molecules in particular is complete bs in my mind, but I still recommend the movie. When I first watched it I had enough exposure to quantum mechanics and science in general to understand that while the basis for many of their scientific arguments was solid, it was often misplaced, misrepresented, or not completely defined. I guess since I came to this understanding early in the film I was able to ignore the blatant misconceptions or fill in the blanks when the filmmakers just didn't quite add the BUT in there. As I said before, I think the film is worth viewing for the philosophical aspects and the perspective it gives (scientific support or not).

One last note on that wikipedia article. While I agree with most of the arguments brought forth, the topic is still (after 4 years I wish people would give it a rest...) being debated and is therefore locked from editing. I don't agree with all of the arguments brought against the movie and clearly I'm not alone...

Moriarty, you could always rent it...

Movies like this just annoy me on a matter of principle. it basically slanders the science world. it gives it the popular opinion as being part of a new age movement. it puts quantum mechanics in the same sentence as astrology. I've been around groups of hippies who think they're into quantum mechanics and extremely cerebral because they've experienced trips that took them back to Atlantis. UGH!

Get it right or don't do it at all!

[Arcani]

Movies like this just annoy me on a matter of principle. it basically slanders the science world. it gives it the popular opinion as being part of a new age movement. it puts quantum mechanics in the same sentence as astrology. I've been around groups of hippies who think they're into quantum mechanics and extremely cerebral because they've experienced trips that took them back to Atlantis. UGH!

Get it right or don't do it at all!

Point taken. It bothers me too for those same reasons, but I've never had difficulty ignoring the bad parts and focusing on the good aspects so that I get something out of it in the end.

[Moriarty]

I don't have enough of a foundation in the subject to effectively separate the nonsense from valid theory. The truth of what's been and is being observed under experimentation is strange enough without further confusing myself with some form of mystical conjecture thrown into the mix.

Still, I may rent it out of curiosity and watch it defensively like a Michael Moore film.

Arcani, recommend a decent book on the subject?

[azelismia]

I don't have enough of a foundation in the subject to effectively separate the nonsense from valid theory. The truth of what's been and is being observed under experimentation is strange enough without further confusing myself with some form of mystical conjecture thrown into the mix.

Still, I may rent it out of curiosity and watch it defensively like a Michael Moore film.

Arcani, recommend a decent book on the subject?


have you read the elegant universe by Brian Greene? They also made a three hour nova out of it.

[Moriarty]

have you read the elegant universe by Brian Greene? They also made a three hour nova out of it.

No, but I've seen bits of the nova. You've read the book?

[azelismia]

No, but I've seen bits of the nova. You've read the book?


not yet, I went to a lecture that he gave last year though, He went on a sort of tour with Steven Hawking. I've been meaning to read it. it's supposed to be very good. I have read Chaos, making a new science, that was a good book. very layman in terms.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[sriv]

have you read the elegant universe by Brian Greene? They also made a three hour nova out of it.

I saw the whole thing online. It was up on PBS for free, but probably is not anymore.

I went to his lecture too. Really cool stuff made easy for anyone who is not an astrophysist.

[Aronnax]

Yeah, I get the gist, but it's been about 15 years since I had to do more than just visualize the motion of waves. I'll have to brush up.

So you understand that the concentric circles you get out of the single and double slit experiments are just constructive/destructive interference patterns due to path length differences?

You get wave interference because how waves interact with solid objects. Any point on the wavefront can be treated as a source of spherical wavelets (Huygen's principle if you want to read up on it). The propagating spherical wavelets move just as fast as the parent wave so they're normally indistinguishable from the parent wave... unless the wave front interacts with something that only lets a few wavelets through. The relatively low number of wavelets that can pass through the slit allows interference patterns to appear instead of being washed out in a sea of light waves. The distance from one edge of the slit to a given point is going to be slightly different that the distance from the other side of the slit. This path length difference is what causes the waves to become out of phase and makes them interfere with each other. The bright rings or bands (depending on double or single slit) are where the path lengths are such that the waves constructively interfere. The dark bands/rings are where the path lengths are such that the waves destructively interfere. On the subject of quantum mechanics, specifically the wave functions that describes probability for particles and the there/not there stuff that's fun to talk about, it doesn't really matter here. Even though we've cut down on the amount of photons moving around with the slits there are enough that all the photons that are there more than make up for the ones that aren't.

The "assume it's a particle" when dealing with lenses and mirrors is to simplify the system, it's actually possible to describe those systems using waves, it's just a royal pain in the ass. The particle properties become important when you're looking at conservation of momentum for ejected electrons in the photoelectric effect, "push" from coherent light, gravity/light interacting and when you use the Maxwell equations for magnetic and electric fields. Particle properties like momentum seem incredulous for something with zero mass since momentum = MV. So if mass = 0 it seems that momentum has to be 0. Except calculating mass for momentum in that manner assumes resting mass and mass is dependent on velocity (that comes out of relativity). To further complicate the situation one of the special properties of light is is that there's really no frame of reference where it's at rest so that formula doesn't work here. The way to calculate mass for light would be to look at the energy in a snapshot of the wave and use E=Mc^2 solving for mass => M = E/(c^2). Approaching the problem this way works around the issues with relativity and hints at how light can be massless yet still retain momentum.


Big picture made smaller: it's easiest to think about light as it's own entity and recognize that wave/particle are just convenient ways to model it's behavior.


Regarding "what the bleep do we know" it's an interesting movie about consciousness but has very little to do with physics. Most of the speakers have their doctorates in philosophy and the actual physicists complained that their comments were heavily edited and didn't reflect their actual opinion.

[Moriarty]

Big picture made smaller: it's easiest to think about light as it's own entity and recognize that wave/particle are just convenient ways to model it's behavior.

Thanks for taking the time to make such an informative post. It clears up alot of things but still leaves me with some questions:

During the double slit, firing a single electron at a time should have eliminated interference, but it appears not to have done so. Does this mean the environment wasn't sterile? I would assume that was taken into consideration, but I still have alot of reading to do.

More later after I've smarted myself up a bit.

[Aronnax]

Thanks for taking the time to make such an informative post. It clears up alot of things but still leaves me with some questions:

During the double slit, firing a single electron at a time should have eliminated interference, but it appears not to have done so. Does this mean the environment wasn't sterile? I would assume that was taken into consideration, but I still have alot of reading to do.

More later after I've smarted myself up a bit.

No, the environment was clean, when you drop down to 1 particle at a time that's when quantum mechanics comes into play. In an experiment where there's a lot particles one particle "not being there" isn't going to change the observation much. But if you're observing a single particle and it disappears it's easily noticed. Think about background noise level and conversation to see the difference between the two similar experiments.

There's no clear explanation for why you get a diffraction pattern even if you feed the particles through 1 at a time. The "clearest" explanation for this comes out of the Schrodinger Equation and the Heisenburg uncertainty principle that describe matter as a probability wave. Matter has the chance to exist in any location but it's more probable to exist in certain places. Like most Quantum mechanics it's counterintuitive but the model does match the observations. keep in mind this is all on a very small scale, most matter is "there" most of the time. Think about background noise vs conversation, you'd never notice if 1 person stopped talking at a rock concert.

Although we don't fully understand the phenomenon there are already applications for it. The electron scanning tunneling microscope relies on quantum tunneling, which uses the probability of electrons to "not be there" when their wavefront hits a surface. This allows observations to be taken from inside the object at very fine resolution (resolution depends on wavelength and the wavelength of an electron is very short).

[Moriarty]

Outstanding. Thanks for giving me a good starting point.

[Arcani]

Arcani, recommend a decent book on the subject?
Unfortunately, I don't know of an particular books beside the class texts I use and some more specific ones that probably more focused than you're looking for. I'll second azelismia thoughts on Brian Greene, he is excellent (I haven't read his books yet, but I've read a couple of his papers).


The "assume it's a particle" when dealing with lenses and mirrors is to simplify the system, it's actually possible to describe those systems using waves, it's just a royal pain in the ass.

Welcome to my hell for the past year :irked:

Big picture made smaller: it's easiest to think about light as it's own entity and recognize that wave/particle are just convenient ways to model it's behavior.

Well stated.

Regarding "what the bleep do we know" it's an interesting movie about consciousness but has very little to do with physics. Most of the speakers have their doctorates in philosophy and the actual physicists complained that their comments were heavily edited and didn't reflect their actual opinion.
Agreed. :thumbsup:

Are you a teacher Aronnax? The way you explained that reminded me of my high school Physics teacher (and contrary to popular belief thats a good thing, he's the reason I went into Physics).

[Aronnax]

I'm not a teacher, I'm just an engineering student who took some extra physics classes for fun.

[Linza]

The article on teleportation is kinda dated. I may be wrong, but those experiments were conducted a bit more than just a year ago.

[Moriarty]

You're right, Linza. They've been ongoing in various incarnations at different labs for a few years. (Unless you're referring specifically to double slit, and not quantum teleportation.)

[thegnat]

This is some funky stuff. A particle that behaves like a wave that also behaves like a particle that knows when you're watching and changes it's behavior accordingly. Oh yeah, and one object can be in more than one place at a time. Makes perfect sense.
Yes, quantum is funky. It's hard to wrap your head around since you don't see its affects in every day life. We move too slow, etc.

I recently read up on the (in)famous double slit experiment and it's about to give me a stroke. This is certainly a case of truth appearing stranger than fiction. I won't go into the details of the experiment because anyone who wants to know all about it can just google it. Now you make me actually want to read my article on quantum erasure/the double slit experiment that I got from my prof rather than skimming it...I may get back to you on that later. I've read other articles and been lectured on it however.

My questions for the rational types:

Does this experiment, in your opinion, support the idea of entanglement or the multiverse theory? IMHO: At least entanglement. I don't know much about multiverse theory.

Is it actually possible that the universe we live in is a range of infinite possibilities that becomes narrowed down to a finite point of existence by the mere act of observing it?
It's important to remember that we don't observe quantum mechanical effects macroscopically for a reason. The speed of light is too large and planck's constant is too small.

Can other universes exist within our own that aren't visible to us because we just aren't looking at them or for them?
Does the chair outside the door not exist because you aren't looking at it when you're inside the room? Plus, we can't exactly see radiowaves or anything outside the visible spectrum for example. Humans have limitations. However, other universes inside our own? I'm not sure about that...I'd think there would be some effects that would be observable. They'd have to affect their surroundings in some manner.

When a single object is observed in multiple locations simultaneously (it's been photographed..google it), are we getting a glimpse into a parallel existence of that object? Eh, I don't know much of that. But couldn't that just be relativity? Depending on what the object is?

Is the entire realm of quantum mechanics completely misunderstood bunk with a more sensible explanation?
As people have said before, QM is hard to completely understand. As for a more sensible explanation, I kind of doubt that. When you get down to the atomic level and below it seems that things are rather non-sensical.

I'll try to find the article on Quantum Erasure and link it but I'll do that later. And perhaps expand later.

As for books on it....hmm.....Not sure what are good ones. I used a physical chemistry book and spectroscopy book in my QM chemistry class.

Sorry for my terse answers, but I just finished that final and that class and I'm onto more finals (right now studying intro QM for physics hehe). After tomorrow I'll be done with finals.

[Linza]

You're right, Linza. They've been ongoing in various incarnations at different labs for a few years. (Unless you're referring specifically to double slit, and not quantum teleportation.)

I was gonna say... Michael Crighton has already had the opportunity to do passive research and write a crappy book about this technology. That means it's old. ;)

[azelismia]

I was gonna say... Michael Crighton has already had the opportunity to do passive research and write a crappy book about this technology. That means it's old. ;)


yeah, they've been doign research on this for years with occasional new successes. What's your point?

[Moriarty]

Yes, quantum is funky. It's hard to wrap your head around since you don't see its affects in every day life. We move too slow, etc.
Now you make me actually want to read my article on quantum erasure/the double slit experiment that I got from my prof rather than skimming it...I may get back to you on that later. I've read other articles and been lectured on it however.
IMHO: At least entanglement. I don't know much about multiverse theory.

It's important to remember that we don't observe quantum mechanical effects macroscopically for a reason. The speed of light is too large and planck's constant is too small.

Does the chair outside the door not exist because you aren't looking at it when you're inside the room? Plus, we can't exactly see radiowaves or anything outside the visible spectrum for example. Humans have limitations. However, other universes inside our own? I'm not sure about that...I'd think there would be some effects that would be observable. They'd have to affect their surroundings in some manner.
Eh, I don't know much of that. But couldn't that just be relativity? Depending on what the object is?

As people have said before, QM is hard to completely understand. As for a more sensible explanation, I kind of doubt that. When you get down to the atomic level and below it seems that things are rather non-sensical.

I'll try to find the article on Quantum Erasure and link it but I'll do that later. And perhaps expand later.

As for books on it....hmm.....Not sure what are good ones. I used a physical chemistry book and spectroscopy book in my QM chemistry class.

Sorry for my terse answers, but I just finished that final and that class and I'm onto more finals (right now studying intro QM for physics hehe). After tomorrow I'll be done with finals.


Thanks. I'm looking forward to whatever you throw out here later.





Moriarty added to this post, 10 minutes and 22 seconds later...

I was gonna say... Michael Crighton has already had the opportunity to do passive research and write a crappy book about this technology. That means it's old. ;)

LOL! Yes, and hippies and other mystical chuckleheads have already cited it as evidence of their claims of spiritual enlightenment and understanding.

Maybe I need some Ganja in my diet to better understand it. ;D

[Ool]

This is some funky stuff. A particle that behaves like a wave that also behaves like a particle that knows when you're watching and changes it's behavior accordingly. Oh yeah, and one object can be in more than one place at a time. Makes perfect sense.

Actually it’s simply a wave that is absorbed and has an effect only at a certain quantity and when the conditions are right. Which, depending on the phase of the wave and interference patters, is more or less likely at different times.

That’s why it’s called quantum physics. Because the “particles” are really quantities of whatever phenomenon you’re observing.

Light and subatomic matter consists of particles the same way that a lake consists of drops of water. They’re merely potential drops and they become real drops when they—you know—drop somewhere…

It is mind-boggling because the complexity underlying it is truly huge. We still don’t know much about the medium in which elecromagnetism and the other forces work. And even if we did, it would be like predicting weather patterns from the knowledge of what air and water molecules look like…

[Aven]

Are you talking about that article with the different Multiverses from Scientific American?
The one with the orbs.


Anyway, I'm trying to study intro QM on my own, and watched Brian Greene's video and read part of his books, according to my book by some Knight-guy, apparently QM has been proven numerous times, one of those is Muons and when they reach the atmosphere [google it].

I still think I need more info to try to understand this, but the idea of matter being a particle-wave is not easily explained or visualized, however, it was the end of classical physics when it helped surface the photoelectric effect [and later on the electron orbitals/stationary states] Einstein postulated it, Bohr proved it for Hydrogen with the idea of a standing-wave around the circumference/orbital of a hydrogen atom.

At any rate, this is the site of the dude who made that article in SCIAM:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

He has a lot of interesting stuff.

I still want to understand it more, but I think, that if we ever find an Unified Theory of physics, it will be elegant enough that it will be simple, I just think that perhaps right now, we aren't ready for it yet.

[cha071c0rd3r]

I don't know how many have read this, but for those who haven't, Stephen Hawking's books for the general public ("A Brief History of Time" or "A Briefer History of Time" and "The Universe in a Nutshell") all provide a nice introduction to and a concise explanation of the basic ideas behind some of these things (and they are overall good to read, particularly for those people who are not experts on physics, but are curious).

[azelismia]

I don't know how many have read this, but for those who haven't, Stephen Hawking's books for the general public ("A Brief History of Time" or "A Briefer History of Time" and "The Universe in a Nutshell") all provide a nice introduction to and a concise explanation of the basic ideas behind some of these things (and they are overall good to read, particularly for those people who are not experts on physics, but are curious).


I put off reading a brief history of time for many years because it seemed like B/S from the excerpts I'd seen. I picked it up a year or so ago meaning to give it a fair chance in one of my rare magnamous moods where I realise I could have been too judgemental and not giving things enough of a chance before giving an absolute opinion... and that week Stephan Hawking issued a release that he had been entirely off base with that book and basically it was all B/S..

I dont' recommend that book.

[cha071c0rd3r]

I put off reading a brief history of time for many years because it seemed like B/S from the excerpts I'd seen. I picked it up a year or so ago meaning to give it a fair chance in one of my rare magnamous moods where I realise I could have been too judgemental and not giving things enough of a chance before giving an absolute opinion... and that week Stephan Hawking issued a release that he had been entirely off base with that book and basically it was all B/S..

I dont' recommend that book.

The fact that he took back a part of his own theory, a little of which was in the book, has no effect on his description of contemporary research done by others in several different areas, which is most of the book. I don't see what you may call B/S, considering he did not make many assertions in the book, only explained the concepts behind the contemporary scientific theories (e.g. what exactly wave-particle duality is and how it has been explained so far; what the special and general theory of relativity states and how to better understand it).

[Aven]

I put off reading a brief history of time for many years because it seemed like B/S from the excerpts I'd seen. I picked it up a year or so ago meaning to give it a fair chance in one of my rare magnamous moods where I realise I could have been too judgemental and not giving things enough of a chance before giving an absolute opinion... and that week Stephan Hawking issued a release that he had been entirely off base with that book and basically it was all B/S..

I dont' recommend that book.

Are you serious? I read a BRIEFER history of time, I wonder if I wasted my time...

[azelismia]

Are you serious? I read a BRIEFER history of time, I wonder if I wasted my time...


I don't know, I haven't read it but his theory about black holes was silly. He's since done a turn about on it. I don't know if it's reflected in the newer book.

[Moriarty]

You talking about him reversing himself about black holes?

Edit: oops, guess you were. I was on the wrong page.

[Marcus]

I always felt quantum mechanics to be more accessible than the theory of relativity. For me, the latter is an axiomatic (INTP) clockwork.

Regarding quantum entaglement, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):
"In physics, nonlocality is a direct influence of one object on another, distant object, in violation of principle of locality. In classical physics, nonlocality in the form of action at a distance appeared in corpuscular theories and later disappeared in field theories. Action at a distance is incompatible with relativity. In quantum physics nonlocality re-appeared in the form of entanglement. Physical reality of entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally leading to its application in quantum cryptography and quantum computing. Entanglement is compatible with relativity; however, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory. More general nonlocality, beyond quantum entanglement but still compatible with relativity, is an active field of theoretical investigation but has yet to be observed."

It also rises the question whether there is nonlocality on macro-scale. Or whether synchronicity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (proposed by Jung and supported by Pauli) is a real (not just psychological) phenomenon related to macro-scale nonlocality.

[Aven]

I don't know, I haven't read it but his theory about black holes was silly. He's since done a turn about on it. I don't know if it's reflected in the newer book.
Well I'm not sure, I was more interested in how everything worked...not just black holes.

[cha071c0rd3r]

Well I'm not sure, I was more interested in how everything worked...not just black holes.

That's why I liked it, too. Not to mention the fact that 1) he presented the black hole things as conjectures, not facts and 2) black holes were only a tiny part of either of his books.

[Beery Swine]

This is some funky stuff. A particle that behaves like a wave that also behaves like a particle that knows when you're watching and changes it's behavior accordingly. Oh yeah, and one object can be in more than one place at a time. Makes perfect sense.

I recently read up on the (in)famous double slit experiment and it's about to give me a stroke. This is certainly a case of truth appearing stranger than fiction. I won't go into the details of the experiment because anyone who wants to know all about it can just google it.

My questions for the rational types:

Does this experiment, in your opinion, support the idea of entanglement or the multiverse theory?

Is it actually possible that the universe we live in is a range of infinite possibilities that becomes narrowed down to a finite point of existence by the mere act of observing it?

Can other universes exist within our own that aren't visible to us because we just aren't looking at them or for them?

When a single object is observed in multiple locations simultaneously (it's been photographed..google it), are we getting a glimpse into a parallel existence of that object?

Is the entire realm of quantum mechanics completely misunderstood bunk with a more sensible explanation?

The double slit certainly is confounding. If I have it right, a single particle "interacts" with itself and form the wave interference pattern.

I'm not very fluent at all in quantum physics, and entanglment is beyond my current knowledge, but multiverse? Come on. That's just something that was invented by new age types after hearing about things liek the 2x slit and uncertainty principle. It's not that "looking" at a wave-particle affects it, it's that "to look" at a wp you have to pass another particle over it, unless I have it wrong. My understanding is that it is an idea created and perpetuated by people who don't understand quantum physics, at least that's the gist I get from actual physicists.

Range of infinite possibilities? That's a little different. Again, I'm speaking beyond my experience here, but that seems about right. idk

I don't know, maybe?

I doubt it, but future evidence could prove it and my previous statements wrong. I think its just that these things are so counter-intuitive to what we're used to seeing and what evolution has specialized us to be used to that it seems to our primitive minds like magic or hallucinations.

Misunderstood by the genpop, myself included? Probably. Bunk? I'd wager no.