Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

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

Like Tree2Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Dec 12th 2016, 02:39 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 26
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.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12th 2016, 03:26 PM   #12
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
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 View Post
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
__________________
I'm a "something shiny" kind of...Oh look! Something shiny!

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12th 2016, 03:47 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 26
ℏ→0 is outdated, my quantum wavelength theory better defines the boundary.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.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12th 2016, 04:21 PM   #14
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
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
__________________
I'm a "something shiny" kind of...Oh look! Something shiny!

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12th 2016, 04:34 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 26
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.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12th 2016, 04:46 PM   #16
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
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
__________________
I'm a "something shiny" kind of...Oh look! Something shiny!

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12th 2016, 04:49 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 26
Particles apparently do not interfere with it's environment because we get an interference pattern without a detector.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12th 2016, 06:48 PM   #18
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
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
__________________
I'm a "something shiny" kind of...Oh look! Something shiny!

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13th 2016, 06:12 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 26
You are acting like we don't get two separate sets of results dependent on observation
pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13th 2016, 06:18 PM   #20
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
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
__________________
I'm a "something shiny" kind of...Oh look! Something shiny!

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
scramble, theory, unify



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BCS Theory PranavSateesh Atomic and Solid State Physics 0 Oct 16th 2016 04:27 AM
The theory of everything billtant Physics 3 Aug 22nd 2016 11:32 PM
Dark Matter Theory (personal theory) kevinmorais General Physics 41 Sep 11th 2009 11:36 AM
theory physics titanic_211@yahoo.com Philosophy of Physics 2 Aug 22nd 2009 08:01 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed