wavicle: an old topic

Woody

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.

neila9876

@ 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
@ 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

neila9876

@ 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
@ 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

neila9876

neila9876

@ 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
@ 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

neila9876

@ 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?