pittsburghjoe Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Everywhere I turn "superposition" has its hand in making things weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Everywhere I turn "superposition" has its hand in making things weird. Depends on what qualifies as weird. Is diffraction of particles weird? It's not classical behavior, but it's not dependent on superposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 1, 2016 Author Share Posted December 1, 2016 Particles acting like a wave are not in a superposition state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Particles acting like a wave are not in a superposition state? Not always. And it's not so much particles acting as waves they are neither particle nor wave. They're something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 Not always ..you mean when it's not in superposition anymore ::rolls eyes:: And, tell me, what proof do you have that a particle doesnt morph between states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Not always ..you mean when it's not in superposition anymore ::rolls eyes:: And, tell me, what proof do you have that a particle doesnt morph between states? When it's not in a superposition of states. Which is quite often. Swansont gave a good example. Well "Simultaneous observation of the quantization and the interference pattern of a plasmonic near-field." Nature Communications 02 March 2015 There is also no evidence of morphing which if nothing else would mean you could catch it in the "wrong" state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Not always ..you mean when it's not in superposition anymore ::rolls eyes:: And, tell me, what proof do you have that a particle doesnt morph between states? The diffraction equation just depends on momentum. No dependence on superposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 Momentum ..but can't be observed at the time. Are you playing games with me? When it's not in a superposition of states. Which is quite often. Swansont gave a good example. Well "Simultaneous observation of the quantization and the interference pattern of a plasmonic near-field." Nature Communications 02 March 2015 There is also no evidence of morphing which if nothing else would mean you could catch it in the "wrong" state. Doesn't the double slit experiment suggest to you that the particle is physically changing states when observed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 No, it implies to me that our ape descended brains have no analogy for what is going on and these things are something different, neither wave not particle but something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Momentum ..but can't be observed at the time. Are you playing games with me? That's vague. You can determine the momentum to a fairly high degree. Doesn't the double slit experiment suggest to you that the particle is physically changing states when observed? No, it doesn't. It suggests that it has a wavelegth of h/p. An electron has no internal states that could be placed in a superposition, and it diffracts and interferes. Wave phenomena and superposition are not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Think of superposition as the sum of all possibilities. All possible positions and quantum waveforms. When you make a measurement you narrow the possibilities to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 I would be okay with Wave phenomena being an optical illusion ..except the path actually changes. Think of superposition as the sum of all possibilities. All possible positions and quantum waveforms. When you make a measurement you narrow the possibilities to 1. That's fine, it's still the cause of all weirdness though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) No its weird as it is poorly understood. However if you understand superposition as a probability distribution function. That when you make a measurement even if the measurement doesn't cause interference limits the probabilities. Nothing weird about that at all. This occurs in numerous statistical situations. Take a particle it has a statistical probabiliy of being at a given location on a waveform. That wave form is the probability wave. Its amplitude is determined by the percentage chance of the particle being on the peak of the amplitude. Say 75 % chance but the particle has a chance of being anywhere on the probability wave. Once you measure the particles position. You now know the location. So you have reduced the particle position probabilities to 1. Your not interfering with its position. You interfere with the probability of being in any other position. Edited December 2, 2016 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 yes, let us ignore the fact that it takes conscientiousness to interfere ..nope, nothing weird about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 I would be okay with Wave phenomena being an optical illusion ..except the path actually changes. To be blunt the universe doesn't care what you, nor I or any other ape descendent would be OK with. yes, let us ignore the fact that it takes conscientiousness to interfere ..nope, nothing weird about that. It doesn't require consciousness. That's a popsci misconception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 It doesn't require consciousness. That's a popsci misconception. It requires it for single particle experiments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 yes, let us ignore the fact that it takes conscientiousness to interfere ..nope, nothing weird about that. Thats a bit of a fallacy. Just because we choose to measure something isn't weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 Just because we choose to measure something isn't weird. I'm detecting a bit of denial. You know QM needs updated to handle this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 I'm detecting a bit of denial. You know QM needs updated to handle this. I'm detecting misunderstanding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) If your referring to quantum consciousness your not dealing with superposition of the two slit experiment itself. Quantum consciousness is literally to determine how our consciousness works. rough analogy until you make a choice all possible choices are in superposition. Not much different from "until you make a measurement all possible outcomes are valid" ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ... Is there a purpose behind this? Edited December 2, 2016 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 I would be okay with Wave phenomena being an optical illusion ..except the path actually changes. Your approval is not required. Wave phenomena actually happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 yep, it happens ..with the help of superposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 I'm detecting a bit of denial. You know QM needs updated to handle this. QM needs to reflect how nature behaves, not your misunderstanding of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 Does the Wave phenomena of an unmeasured free particle match anything on the Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts