>positioned by a wave like force? Explain yourself. Are you saying that something makes the electrons go through some complicated paths to form the interference pattern?
Cameron Brooks
I think that's what he meant. Seems reasonable to me too (not a physicist ofc). Maybe it's just some wave-like force exerted by slits that makes this wave-like pattern.
Luke Evans
Well then it's upon you to describe those forces and explain their mechanisms, etc. But what we have found is that a simple wave description of the particle elegantly explains the interference pattern, and is also successful in describing many other phenomena.
Joseph Reyes
the 'wave' is just fucking probability of strikes. you'd get the same effect rolling bowling balls through two doors. theoretical scientists are just fucking idiots is all.
David Clark
Are you retarded? Bowling balls don't produce a visible interference pattern.
Sebastian Parker
do other forms of matter produce wave like distributions in the same experiment?
Aaron Thomas
Yes, everything produces an interference pattern, but the pattern is visible only in the case of small particles (large wavelengths).
Henry Rivera
bumpello
Jayden Wilson
Why are you bumping? read: Also read Feynman's introduction to QM before posting these threads:
Imagine the bowling balls are made of discrete shells which can be disintegrated on collision. Also imagine the experiment is performed in a zero g environment. If the outermost shell of a ball hits the left edge of the slit, then the ball will turn to the left. If the ball passes closer to the edge and two shells are destroyed, the ball will turn further to the left.
If electrons are spherical standing waves, you would expect them to weaken ("lose their shells") during interactions, and regain strength from background radiation. Nothing spooky is necessary.
Jace Gutierrez
To my knowledge it has been shown for >Photons >Electrons >Neutrons >Protons >Alpha particles >Complete Helium atoms >Molecules (largest one being one of those carbon balls)
The larger the size, the more difficult it gets.
Anyway, OP, I'm the guy from the /g/ thread. It's easy to get misunderstand when explaining stuff in few short sentences. I strongly recommend you to watch this lecture series:
It's honestly the best thing you can watch on the internet on that topic. It's not only the current state on the matter, it's also fantastically complete and comprehensive. Just watch the whole thing and really try to follow him. He helped inventing the theory he's talking about and that theory in part is still the state of the art today. So do yourself a favour and watch it. He's basically saying everything is a particle and not a wave, which I see the other way around, but anyway, watch that.
Gavin Ward
>you would expect them to weaken ("lose their shells") during interactions, and regain strength from background radiation. What the fuck are you talking about
Camden Parker
The spherical standing wave theory of electrons.
Ayden Lee
You have to stop thinking of an electron (and all particles) as really small ball. Everything acts like a wave at that scale.
Asher Foster
All this business about shells breaking has no basis in reality though, you literally just made it up.
>regain strength from background radiation What
Levi Brown
And I'm saying the interference is an illusion, caused by electrons interacting with the four edges of the slits, rather than with each other through some fucking bullshit that requires time travel.
Michael Jenkins
I'm bumping because I think there may be situations when you absolutely have to agree with all that strange things from quantum mechanics (like everything is a wave or like there is some kind of a summation across all the possibilities).
Cooper Carter
It's amazing how misconceptions often seem to sum up into complete bullshit that's just too tiresome to even attempt to sort out.
Asher Rogers
It's a metaphor for the peaks of spherical standing waves. Regaining strength is part of the standing wave theory.
Elijah Ross
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Could you explain these "shells" more clearly?
Christopher Gray
So what does that have to do with particles hitting each other?
Xavier Wood
That would mean that the interference pattern depends on i.e. the thickness of the double slitted plate and the material of it. That is not the case however. Also, there are interference experiments that don't even need a slit.
Colton Ward
If a ball bounces off the edge of the slit why is it more likely to hit some places than others (in the periodic shape of an interference pattern).
Remember that this also happens when you do one electron at a time.
Evan Reed
Since a lot of people will use too complex explanations for you to understand, I'll dumb it down to a 5th grader tier
>A predictable pattern emerges after a huge amount of particles go through the slit >Therefor, that pattern implies that there is a probability template being applied to where the particles get redistributed
>That probability template matches a wave behavior
The shells drag on the edges of the slits, turning the particle.
The don't hit each other, it's an illusion.
The shells are discrete, they turn the particle by a discrete angle.
>That is not the case however. Also, there are interference experiments that don't even need a slit. Source?
Jayden Nelson
>Source? Oh, now the advocate of fantasy physics demands a source?
Anyway, look at the michelson interferometer or interferometry in general. You will find that you have a hard time explaining the behaviour with particles bouncing off things.
Justin Watson
>particles bouncing off things.
No, I said spherical standing waves being rotated inwards as they pass the edge of the slit.
>fantasy physics You're the one who believes in time travel.
Ian Rogers
>The shells are discrete, they turn the particle by a discrete angle. What's your justification for this assertion?
Connor Cox
So how do you explain weak interaction with your model? Can your theory predict the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron with the enormous precision that QED can? Can your theory explain particle decay? Can your theory actually explain anything at all that keeps physicists busy for the last century? Does your theory explain anything at all that current theories can't explain? If it can't, how could we possibly verify your theory in future experiments?
Time travel is not required by any modern theory by the way. Put your energy into understanding established theories instead of buying into some nutjob's bullshit. Physics in unbelievably small scales usually are quite unbelievable. If that is too much for you to take, then you should just ignore the field of physics from now on completely. Don't waste your time with this.
Jonathan Young
I started this thread with a couple questions and now I have too many to count.
I can't even reply because evey sentence I type makes me realize how many other things I don't know. I couldn't be happier.
So the fundamental nature of all matter is wave-like? There's so many things I want to say but I'm starting to think I don't really know what a wave is.
Thank you user, I sincerely appreciate all your replies.
Thank you for this link, I will read it.
Luke Lopez
>So the fundamental nature of all matter is wave-like? Everything can be described by a wavefunction, but this wavefunction isn't usually a perfect sinusoidal wave. And the wave isn't actually a physical wave, it's a probability wave. Feynman explains all this.
Thomas Parker
>>That probability template matches a wave behavior Indeed. But is it that particles are waves or is it just that the some property of the slit varies (effectively) randomly within certain bounds,
Alexander Wright
So then what's the significance of describing a particle's movement using a wave function?
I have alot of shit to read up including that Feynman link so if it's in that disregard
Brody Hill
The energy of a wave is related to the frequency of the wave.
Since e = mc^2, mass can be substituted for energy. This suggests mass has a wavelength.
No shit, a history phd submitted this theory and it was dismissed for a long time.
Eli Reed
>Everything acts like a wave at that scale
only prior to an irreversible act of amplification
Jackson Adams
>he doesn't know about pilot waves
Julian Gonzalez
You know what's really weird? Entanglement could just be retrocausality!
Jordan Scott
Holy fuck, that link is nearly TIMECUBE.
Brody Kelly
What's with the link? I checked a few titles. It sounds like total bullshit at many points.
Logan Myers
dude i totally get you you're saying it's just a probability distribution and it is, but you can describe it as a wave because maths
language is really bad for physics, people get trapped in definitions
Benjamin Perry
seriously tho, are particles sentient?
why are they changing their behaviour if we are observing it?
Do they know? Was there scientific explanation for this?
Grayson Powell
This
Electrons aren't sentient you fucking cucks
Tyler Scott
There is no difference; Bohmian mechanics is mathematIcally equivalent formulation of quantum mechanics where the particles actually are guided by "pilot waves".
However, it's regarded as unnecessarily complicated and rather unnatural-seeming by mainstream physics, so it's largely ignored.
Christopher Bailey
Physics crackpot.
Luke Evans
They change behavior because in order to observe it, you have to add energy to it (i.e light, or else you wouldn't see it). Since the system has been changed, the wavefunction predicting its motion also changes
Brody Young
This is actually wrong. That's why Heisenberg thought it worked, but that was like a hundred years ago.
>Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[5][6] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems, that is, without changing something in a system. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[7] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[8] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects
Unfortunately, I'm barely above popsci level, so I can't really give a a good explanation myself.
Isaiah Myers
Not actually what's being discussed here, I think. I assume the comment about adding energy and perturbing the system is a very basic description of the EPR paradox, rather than merely a comment of the dE/dt formulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
'Behaviour changes' due to 'observation', are to do with the nature of measurement as an entanglement process. I admit to not having a strong enough grounding in modern quantum information theory for this one, but my understanding is that the view of eigenstates collapsing due to measurement is, according to classic Shannon QIT, an artifact of the entanglement process caused by the interaction between the detector and the particle. There does not even have to be a transfer of energy for this to occur, merely a transfer of information.
The only way to avoid information transfer and thus entanglement would be if the detector did not interact with the particle, which is equivalent to saying that the particle went undetected. I know experiments were designed which relied on non-detection as a means of extracting information about a particle, but I don't know if they were ever performed.
Cooper Wilson
That was what I was going for in terms of "actually, it's not just transfer of energy", that it's more to do with the fact that the observer/environment are now entangled with the state, but I lacked the expertise to be sure that 1) I wasn't talking bullshit and 2) to actually explain that in useful detail without making a mistake. Apparently I also picked the wrong Wikipedia article, now that I look more closely at it.
Thank you for expressing what I was unable to do.
Aiden Cox
proof is I dont shoot light out of my eyes and I didn't choose to encounter the particle it ran into me
Elijah Parker
OP here.
Here's where I'm at so far: >An interference pattern is the result of peaks and valleys created by constructive and deconstructive interference between two waves. >If waves are sent through slits, each wave's travel time is effected by the extra distance it travels around the edge of the slit >This results in waves of different phases >said waves would collide on the other side of the slit resulting in interference >naturally some would be full constructive (doubling the amplitude) while others would be full destructive (resulting in no wave) and the rest would be somewhere between. >regardless we would see a interference pattern reflecting this >because the same pattern appears when electrons are sent through a slit, it leads us to believe that electrons have a wavelength (or other properties of a wave)
Now what I don't understand is how you can double the amplitude of an electron?? What does the resulting dot look like? Also I thought they shot then one by one, how can you have interference with only one particle? If aligned properly, could two electrons collide and completely disappear because of destructive interference?
