wavicle: an old topic

Jun 2016
1,358
689
England
I have been considering this...
During its travel through the slits, the wavicle essentially leaves the apparatus unchanged
When it meets the screen however, it changes the state of one of the atoms in the screen.

Which atom it alters is a roll of the dice,
but with a probability determined by the probability function of the interference experiment.

The locality of the wavicle is determined by the nature of its interaction with the wider universe.
If that interaction is light and loose, then the location is only loosely defined
If that interaction is tightly defined, then the location is tightly defined.
 
Mar 2019
927
50
cosmos
@ woody:
No matter in the case of single slit or double slits, some electrons will be blocked by the panel where the slit/slits locate on, I think.Guys can paint fluorescor on the panel to demonstrate it. Those electrons do not creat tiny points on the screen. That means electron not always take " all possible routes" (not always favours "loosely defined" scenario alike sea wave).
Moreover, the size of the screen is limited, not "tightly defined". Guys can even creat a slit on the screen to make it more "loose" and see if the pattern will disappear.
 

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,106
659
On the dance floor, baby!
@ woody:
No matter in the case of single slit or double slits, some electrons will be blocked by the panel where the slit/slits locate on, I think.Guys can paint fluorescor on the panel to demonstrate it. Those electrons do not creat tiny points on the screen. That means electron not always take " all possible routes" (not always favours "loosely defined" scenario alike sea wave).
Moreover, the size of the screen is limited, not "tightly defined". Guys can even creat a slit on the screen to make it more "loose" and see if the pattern will disappear.
The electrons take all possible paths open to them. Of course there will be electrons that strike the screen with the slits. But those that don't will continue on and take all possible paths after going through the slits.

-Dan
 
Mar 2019
927
50
cosmos
@ dragon:
" Pass through in one route while strike on the panel in another possible route" and " strike on the panel in one route while Pass through in another possible route" are the same meaning in logic.
 

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,106
659
On the dance floor, baby!
@ dragon:
" Pass through in one route while strike on the panel in another possible route" and " strike on the panel in one route while Pass through in another possible route" are the same meaning in logic.
How can it strike the panel while pass through in another? If it strikes the panel it can't go any further!

-Dan
 
  • Like
Reactions: neila9876
Mar 2019
927
50
cosmos
@ dragon:
If it can take " all possible routes", it can go further after strikes on the panel. You can see this phenomenon on the beach.
Think it in the counter way, if it can take " all possible routes", how can it passes through the slits while not strikes on the panel?
 

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,106
659
On the dance floor, baby!
@ dragon:
If it can take " all possible routes", it can go further after strikes on the panel. You can see this phenomenon on the beach.
Think it in the counter way, if it can take " all possible routes", how can it passes through the slits while not strikes on the panel?
But when a particle hits an object it no longer exists. It might be re-emitted but that's a new particle, not the old one. So it can't go any further. You are over-thinking this.

-Dan
 
Mar 2019
927
50
cosmos
@ dragon:
Of course, when a particle hits an object, it no longer exist...
But what is under discussion is the philosophy about probability( wave).
How does the concept of " ALL possible routes" come from?
 
Mar 2019
927
50
cosmos
Pay attention please, This thread is about wavicle, rather than about the particle characteristic aspect only.
 

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,106
659
On the dance floor, baby!
A wave will stop when it hits an obstacle as well. I usually just use the word "particle" when talking about "wavicles." When I'm doing QFT I typically abandon both terms and talk about the fields associated with them.

One of the main problems with the Quantum aspect of wavicles is how they get from one point to another. Even early on it was apparent that there was something screwy about saying we have particles (or waves) moving from one point to another. When Bohm and De Broglie got their heads together and described the first "particle" wave (the electron) and put forth the idea that we can predict only the probablity that the electron is at one point or another the idea of a trajectory became meaningless. (I'm told that the "path" of a subatomic particle is called a "Markov chain." I know very little about these.) The concept is that there is a chance that the wavicle can be at any possibly allowed point, inluding being in an entirely different room than the experiement if the door is open. I would laugh at how lame It all sounds but it works.

Now, we also have to be reasonable about all this. The chances our electron is in a different room are vanishingly small. We usually figure that the wavicle does travel something of a path, the width and nature of that path being described by the Heisenberg Principle. But the wavicle can still pull some interesting tricks like going through two slits at once and interfering with itself so we still can't entirely trust in the trajectory concept.

-Dan