Does the Theory of Relativity have an answer for the Double Slit Experiment?

Does the Theory of Relativity have an answer for the Double Slit Experiment?
I recently started getting into science, and began with Quantum Physics. It's mind boggling that an electron can be both a wave and a particle at the same time. This sounds like it breaks all laws of nature as I was taught back in High School. So is there an answer for why an electron does this or is it just still a mystery?

Attached: 1490907824314.png (357x368, 107K)

>I recently started getting into science, and began with Quantum Physics.

Attached: 350853083805.jpg (403x392, 47K)

The consensus is that it exhibits wave-particle duality, but the largest minority position is that it follows a 'pilot-wave' model. what we know is that electrons and other subatomic particles are best described with a complex wave function, involving imaginary numbers.

"Why" it does this is dependent on the as yet untested and unproved underlying principle for quantum mechanics, the two most notable propositions being the Copenhagen model and the Many-Worlds model, along with a couple others.

In short we're more focused on what is going on before we look much deeper.

Relativity has nothing to do with the double-slit experiment.

Quantum mechanics covers that area.
Solve the equations and make very accurate predictions about what will happen in any given experiment. (If you run the experiment multiple times, because the predictions are only statistical -- like life insurance companies know how many people will die, but not which ones.)
Whether you consider QM as "an answer" is up to you. The math works, but "what it means" is still hotly debated.

Bait

Sage

Nah, particles do have definite positions and momentums, they just can't relay that information to other particles.

>It's mind boggling that an electron can be both a wave and a particle at the same time
It's neither.
An electron is an electron.
All this talk of "waves" and "particles" is a vain effort to describe them in a way we can relate to, based on our experience with macroscopic objects.

Attached: XtjigaL.jpg (640x1138, 62K)

>muh hidden variables

You would need some way of confirming that despite atomic scales of momentum and position being constrained by HUP.

Quantum mechanics shows us that reality is not what we thought it was. Using phrases like "sometimes it behaves like a particle and sometimes it behaves like a wave" is just a poor approximation of the actual math of quantum physics.

What quantum physics shows beyond all doubt is that reality is not just a bunch of billiard balls obeying deterministic equations of motion. It's something entirely different at the smallest levels. However, when you sum up the net behavior of the bazillions of individual subatomic particles, you get the modern deterministic billiard ball equations of motion as a statistical approximation, but reality itself is far weirder than what you would expect.

>tfw we had to do quantum physics, up to de broglie in senior grade of highschool
AMA

How little did it help you when actual wave equations showed up.

also, if you want a real mindfuck, read about quantum erasers and delayed choice quantum erasers.

i mean wave equations and wave functions themselves are more of mathematical concept than a physical

The consequences of which are largely overblown or misinterpreted. Really, they just show what we should already know from the simple Bell's inequality tests. In other words, quantum physics cannot be produced by any real model, deterministic or random, that uses hidden local variables. In other words, quantum mechanics is not just about our inability to measure what's really going on. Instead, "what's really going on" is something completely different than our historical notions of reality and physics.

PS: I am unsure if spontaneous collapse models get around this problem. I'm just an amateur. I know that spontaneous collapse models help with the measurement problem, which IMAO is is a severe philosophical problem for quantum mechanics.

>quantum entanglement and nonlocality could make FTL communication possible
"the consequences of this are hugely overblown"

>quantum entanglement and nonlocality could make FTL communication possible
Lol
Oh wait, you actually believe this? Let me laugh harder.

But that's the point: The wave equations and the wave functions are the physical. What we previously understood as "physical" was just a statistical approximation of what was really going on, and what is really going on is described by the wave equation. That's what the tests of Bell's inequalities show us.

>muh axiomatic quantum field theory
>muh no-communication theorem
>muh lets just assume it is impossible therefore it has to be

No, I was responding to a different claim. I was responding to the claim "this well-known experiment shows that FTL communications is possible", and that's just wrong. FTL communication is completely impossible in quantum theory, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

If you want to postulate additional / alternative physics, then FTL might be possible, but that's a separate, unrelated conversation.

not that user but...

Could you not use something like an elitzer-vaidman bomb tester to discern information from the entangled particle?

granted that particular apparatus has about 33% success rate, but there are alternative versions that improve upon it.

In principle, discerning information without collapsing the waveform should be possible.

Discerning information about the other particle does not allow communication. That's the whole point. For communication, you need to alter the other particle's configuration in some way.

>Some authors have argued that using the no-communication theorem to deduce the impossibility of superluminal communication is circular, since the no-communication theorem assumes that the system is composite
no u

Ok. Please go write your paper and get it reviewed, and win your Nobel prize while you're at it.

Fucking troll.

>im just an amateur
>i already know whats possible and what not
i just want you to learn that in modern fields (20th century and beyond) a lot of fucking stuff is uncertain

And this is not one of those things. The prohibition on FTL is one of the best-supported claims of modern physics, independently supported from modern quantum field theory and also from relativity.

Maybe relativity and quantum physics are wrong. Maybe they're so wrong that FTL is possible. Seems highly unlikely.

Again though, you're moving the goalposts. The original context was an idiot poster who claimed that a particular well known experiment regarding quantum theory, the quantum eraser experiment - showed that FTL is possible - and that's just wrong.

You would beed some way of confirming that particles do have (generally) unfixed positions and momenta until they are measured despite the fact that you cannot know their positions or momenta until measuring them.

Again, the point of the tests of Bell's inequalities is to show that quantum theory is not compatible with an understanding that "particles" have definite positions and momenta. We have tested it. Reality cannot be explained by a naive system of billiard balls. It's not just that we cannot measure it. It's that the idea of definite particles with definite positions - plus locality - is simply not compatible with the tests that we can have done.

The short answer is it's neither a wave nor a particle, it has properties of both. That might seem like a cop-out answer, but it's an answer nonetheless.

Also, Google things. The answer (or lack of one) is not hard to find. This is most people's first glimpse of QM, so there are plenty of opinions out there.

well yes of course. Who said anything about locality. Not even the copenhagen interpretation is local.

>Not even the copenhagen interpretation is local
Do you mean that because of entanglement quantum is nonlocal? Because if that's your argument then you're wrong, entanglement does not imply nonlocality, entanglement is correlated randomness, it doesn't imply action at a distance as many people imply it does.

Again, tests of Bell's inequalities.

Well, yeah, Bell's tests only say that hidden variable theories are nonlocal, not standard Copenhagen qm.

How things behave depends on laws of nature, the electron's motion is governed by Schrodinger's equation, so it moves like that.

>All this talk of "waves" and "particles" is a vain effort to describe them in a way we can relate to, based on our experience with macroscopic objects.
I'd say it would be to make it more accessible to the lay person, not to make physicists more comfortable with the idea

>t. wikipedia pro
s*ge

>have no idea what information actually is (how it's formally defined)
>have no idea what entanglement actually is (how it's formally defined)
>go on Veeky Forums anyway and start making grand claims about entanglement and information theory as if you're an expert
I honestly don't know why Veeky Forums still exists. This board is a huge joke.