|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.90.39.24
In Reply to: RE: To paraphrase Feynman... posted by geoffkait on May 22, 2015 at 14:53:47
Get over what?
I asked one question, "Why doesn't the monitoring of the end result collapse the wave?".
You either have an answer or you don't.
If you have nothing, not even a guess, I can only assume you haven't looked into quantum physics.
The thing is, I thought some of you products are supposedly based on quantum physics?
Maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks anyway.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Follow Ups:
No need to bust my balls. Yes, I design quantum mechanics based products. But that logically doesn't mean I know everything. Any more than a thoracic surgeon knows all about brain surgery. Let me know if you find the answer. By the way just curious don't you find it strange that particles like electrons act like waves too? Or that bowling balls act like waves. Or are you too sophisticated? EVERYTHING about the double slit experiment is strange, such as firing single photons one at a time through the slits, and obtaining the interference pattern on the other side. Do you see why that is strange?
Edits: 05/22/15 05/22/15 05/22/15 05/22/15
| Do you see why that is strange?Yes it's strange, but only if you think of particles as being first. The wavefunctions are.
The duality is that in observational physical 3-d space the effects look like 3-d particles sometimes and 3-d waves sometime.
The truth is that neither is precisely right.
The laws of quantum mechanics are written as evolution operators on wave*functions* which are the true fundamental "things" {elements of state} in the theory. Of course these are much less intuitive for human brains to understand, and even less intuitive is that they are elements in a functional Hilbert space which is not physical space. And that's where all the weirdness comes from.
Particle/no-particle is a sometime thing as one can see by creation/annihilation operators on the underlying fields (which are quantum mechanical wavefunctions of functions (the field)). Just depends on your basis. You don't even need to have a definite number of particles at any time, i.e. the wavefunction needn't be in an eigenstate of the particle number operator. If you took expectation you'd have a probability distribution of particle counts.
Edits: 06/04/15
Yes, I do.
"...I design quantum mechanics based products"
But you have no opinion WRT my question?
I'm sorry but that seems strange to me.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
At this point who gives a shit?
If you really know little about QP, but you say you design QP products, your customers might give a shit.
I would think someone who knows about QP would have some kind of answer to my question.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: