Physics Help Forum Scramble Theory
 User Name Remember Me? Password

 Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

 Dec 12th 2016, 03:39 PM #11 Member     Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 43 The Quantum-Classical Boundary is correlated to Quantum Wavelength. We don't get weird stuff at our scale because the wavelength of fullsize objects are too small to allow superpostion. Single/free particles, on the other hand, are part of that world. So they do only collapse when we measure them. Everything has a reason, including Quantum scale. You can't deny a conscious observer is required for the double slit experiment. It shows us that the particle actively switches from a path of a wave to one of a single particle.
Dec 12th 2016, 04:26 PM   #12

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,152
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe The Quantum-Classical Boundary is correlated to Quantum Wavelength. We don't get weird stuff at our scale because the wavelength of fullsize objects are too small to allow superpostion. Single/free particles, on the other hand, are part of that world. So they do only collapse when we measure them.
Actually Classical Physics is the limit as $\displaystyle \hbar \to 0$.

 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe Everything has a reason, including Quantum scale. You can't deny a conscious observer is required for the double slit experiment. It shows us that the particle actively switches from a path of a wave to one of a single particle.
Yes but we don't actually observe the particle, devices do. So is a human needed for the double slit experiment?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Dec 12th 2016, 04:47 PM   #13
Member

Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 43
ℏ→0 is outdated, my quantum wavelength theory better defines the boundary. You can in principle entangle arbitrarily large systems, but to do so requires you to cool down these systems. And cooling down means... increasing their quantum wavelengths.

Also, this guy says you're wrong Classical Mechanics Is not the ?, ? 0 Limit of Quantum Mechanics | SpringerLink

 we don't actually observe the particle, devices do. So is a human needed for the double slit experiment?
Have you looked at the delayed choice (quantum eraser) experiment? It shows that it has nothing to do with the devices.

Dec 12th 2016, 05:21 PM   #14

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,152
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe ℏ→0 is outdated, my quantum wavelength theory better defines the boundary. You can in principle entangle arbitrarily large systems, but to do so requires you to cool down these systems. And cooling down means... increasing their quantum wavelengths. Also, this guy says you're wrong Classical Mechanics Is not the ?, ? 0 Limit of Quantum Mechanics | SpringerLink Have you looked at the delayed choice (quantum eraser) experiment? It shows that it has nothing to do with the devices.
That looks like an interesting paper. Too bad I can only access the abstract.

Yes I think that the delayed choice double slit could be a serious objection as it requires a person (presumably an observer) to decide to close off one of the parths to the detector. Either way though how does a human detect the photon? With a piece of equipment. So is the experimenter the observer or is it the detector? That was the point I was trying to make.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Dec 12th 2016, 05:34 PM #15 Member     Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 43 So your problem is that we can't see tiny individual particles with our eyes? The observer with a conscious is the only thing left in the equation to be the key.
Dec 12th 2016, 05:46 PM   #16

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,152
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe So your problem is that we can't see tiny individual particles with our eyes?
Basically. An observer is defined to be something that can collapse the wavefunction. There could be any number of particle/field interactions contained in a region that is smaller than what human eyesight can view. All we can say by eye is that we have something happening in a macroscopically large region, which deals with a wavefunction consisting of far more than just a single photon passing through a slit.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Dec 12th 2016, 05:49 PM #17 Member     Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 43 Particles apparently do not interfere with it's environment because we get an interference pattern without a detector.
Dec 12th 2016, 07:48 PM   #18

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,152
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe Particles apparently do not interfere with it's environment because we get an interference pattern without a detector.
Actually, according to QFT they do. Even if we do the experiment in a hard vacuum there are still virtual particle interactions. It's just that the overall set of interactions average out.

And isn't the interference pattern caught by some kind of device, even if it's as simple as a phosphorescent screen?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Dec 13th 2016, 07:12 PM #19 Member     Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 43 You are acting like we don't get two separate sets of results dependent on observation
Dec 13th 2016, 07:18 PM   #20

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,152
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe You are acting like we don't get two separate sets of results dependent on observation
No I'm just saying that I don't believe that humans are the ones doing the observing.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Tags scramble, theory, unify

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post PranavSateesh Atomic and Solid State Physics 0 Oct 16th 2016 05:27 AM billtant Physics 3 Aug 23rd 2016 12:32 AM kevinmorais General Physics 41 Sep 11th 2009 12:36 PM titanic_211@yahoo.com Philosophy of Physics 2 Aug 22nd 2009 09:01 AM