Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381435

Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ?

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/11/2016 9:54 PM, Y wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this today. Let's
>> take the case of electrons fired from an electron gun at a double slit,
>> where there is an electron-sensitive screen behind that records where
>> the electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the word
>> "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be no change in the
>> statements. (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion"
>> or "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>
> Sure.
>
>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is an
>> indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
>
> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only 'emerges' and becomes
> more apparent with the more electrons hitting the screen.

That's because of the particlelike nature of light that it deposits all 
its energy in one place at one time. So?

>
>> The fact that all
>> the energy of the electron is deposited all at once and all in one place
>> is an indicator of the particlelike properties of the electron. However,
>> it is not necessary that the electron is a particle that carries an
>> associated wave, or that the electron is a wave that carries an
>> associated particle.
>
> Which is not inconsistent with anything I've said. Waves are carried 'by'
> particles, rather than particles necessarily have an associated wave. If
> only one electron is fired, then the wave cannot be detected or observed.

I don't know what the quotation remarks around 'by' are supposed to 
convey. OK, so with one quantum you can't see wave interference. So?

>
>> Instead, the electron is just an electron and BOTH
>> sets of properties are true of it.
>
> I don't think the wave is a property of individual electrons. That property
> only becomes apparent when many are observed.

The apparentness of it isn't particularly relevant. What matters is what 
governs that electron's behavior.

>
>> That is, what we call an "electron"
>> is a quantum field that exhibits BOTH particle properties and wave
>> properties, but it is neither a particle nor a wave.
>
> A field is type of model describing how particles 'move' in a certain region
> of space and time by associating phenomena to real numbers. For example, vector
> and scalar fields can be used to describe direction and intensity of air particles
> moving around the globe - weather maps.

I think fields cover more ground than motion.

>
>> What is particularly interesting is that the interference pattern still
>> appears whether you fire the electrons in bunches or one at a time.
>
> Yeah.. the wave seems predetermined doesn't it ? Maybe this is because
> waves aren't exactly fundamental but only emerge by distribution ?
>
> Would you say that marbles on a peg board behave like ways ? Because they
> do you know, if you apply the same reasoning.
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/GaltonBoard_1000.gif
>
>> This
>> tells you that it is not interference of one electron with a following
>> electron. It is in fact the interference of the one electron WITH
>> ITSELF.
>
> I disagree.

OK, you disagree. The models of quantum mechanics are extraordinary 
successful.

>
>> That is, there is an electron field for that one electron that
>> passes through BOTH slits, and what you are seeing is the result of the
>> interference between the field through both slits.
>
> I disagree. I think super-positioning is baloney. It's an imagined possibility
> derived from the absence of evidence.

What do you mean, absence of evidence?

> It's pseudo-scientific. I think Schrodinger's Cat is pseudoscience.
>
> Science is founded on the act of observation, not what might be behind closed doors.

OK, so where is the observation of the coupling between an electron and 
the subsequent electron, regardless of the distance or the emission time 
between them?

>
>>   (You can test the
>> hypothesis whether what's interfering are subsequent electrons. You
>> would presume that the coupling between electrons would diminish with
>> the interval of time between electrons.
>
> Why would the coupling diminish after a time. It doesn't, I can assure you. The
> coupling only diminishes when observational conditions change or affect the
> coupling. Such as when another observer is placed near the slit.
>
> Let me recast what scientists actually say about this. They think it's quantum
> "weirdness" and that somehow the electrons "know" they are being observed.
> More pseudoscience.

Now, now, what pop sci babble have you been reading?

>
>
>> Then you can test this simply by
>> seeing whether the interference pattern changes with the interval of
>> time between electrons. You'll find that there is no change, and
>> therefore it's not coupling between subsequent electrons that's
>> responsible for the interference.)
>
> I disagree. It might be. There might be an entangled coupling anchoring all
> of the fired electrons into a wave like distribution on the screen.
>
>> So the explanation of the behavior is consistent with the electron
>> passing through both of the slits simultaneously, though the electron
>> ultimately appears only in one place on the screen; and the same is true
>> for every subsequent electron.
>
> I don't think sufficient evidence is produced to show that two superpositioned
> electrons

Not two superpositioned electrons. There is only one electron. Two 
histories, maybe. One electron.

> pass through the slits. Only one hits the screen, and it is the "screen" where
> we make an observation here, not anywhere else.
>
> Thankyou for recasting the evaluation as it is now understood OddBod. I
> already knew this, but thanks again, it's well written according to that interpretation.
>
> -y
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:15 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:23 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:20 -0500
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:34 -0700
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:01 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:55 -0700
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:55 -0500
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:58 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:54 -0700
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:03 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 03:21 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 11:55 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:25 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:05 -0500
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-13 21:10 +1000
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:02 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 12:45 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:25 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:31 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 16:24 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:13 -0400
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:40 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 02:44 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:11 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:07 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:15 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:27 -0400
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:42 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-16 06:39 +0200
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-16 18:43 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-16 05:57 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:19 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:10 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:45 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-12 06:45 +0200
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-14 04:24 +0200
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:52 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? bruntlybunky <bruntlybunky@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 15:12 -0700

csiph-web