- #1
steersman
- 46
- 0
Is an electron everywhere at once within a waveform?
Originally posted by steersman
Is an electron everywhere at once within a waveform?
and what about a photon?
Originally posted by steersman
Is an electron everywhere at once within a waveform?
Originally posted by dlgoff
When bound in an atom their location can be narrowed to a probability density distribution depending on its energy state. However, within the distributions, HUP still applies.
Corrections encourged.
The probability distributions are infinite in extent...
Originally posted by dlgoff
So even as part of an atom, the electrons probability distribution is everywhere?
What about the wave equation solutions for the hydrogen atom for example.
I thought that they described various symetrical distribution patterns that are localized (i.e. depending on the its quantum numbers).
Originally posted by Thallium
Isn't this related to Schrödinger's cat mystery?
Originally posted by Tom
Yes. The idea is that you do not know exactly where the electron is until you measure it. Since you can only know the result of a measurement, it leaves open the (untestable) interpretation that, inbetween measurements, the electron can be in more than one place at a time, though it does not imply that. The absurdity of such a position was highlighted by Schrodinger with a "quantum cat" that was at once, both dead and alive.
...3d polar plots of atomic orbitals, that seem to have definite cutoff points. ...they determine the orbital which contains, say, the innermost 90-95% of the probability density,...
Maybe Penrose looks for such explanation to prove some of his metaphysical ideas. It shows that measurement problems of an (egocentrical) observer influences his general perception of the reality of the world. The same absurdity is like some people say that the tree that falls in the wood without an observer doesn't makes a sound.Originally posted by Thallium
To me however, this sounds more like a metaphysical idea.
Originally posted by pelastration
The same absurdity is like some people say that the tree that falls in the wood without an observer doesn't makes a sound.
Originally posted by Tom
Yes. The idea is that you do not know exactly where the electron is until you measure it. Since you can only know the result of a measurement, it leaves open the (untestable) interpretation that, inbetween measurements, the electron can be in more than one place at a time, though it does not imply that. The absurdity of such a position was highlighted by Schrodinger with a "quantum cat" that was at once, both dead and alive.
Originally posted by pelastration
The same absurdity is like some people say that the tree that falls in the wood without an observer doesn't makes a sound.
Sure. It was not a moon-sized asteroid but still a serious one. Indeed it made a serious sound. Result: end of the dino's. Not human observers but animal. But they noticed and felt the effects!Originally posted by pallidin
A moon-sized asteroid crashing into an earth-like planet 100 million light years away makes a hell-of-a huge sound in that local environment, regardless of whether or not anyone observes it.
Prove that wrong.
C is indeed the essential: air molecules were displaced/replaced. With or without human ears: the shockwave occured.Originally posted by Jimmy
I suppose it depends on how you define sound.
Webster's Definition:
1 a : a particular auditory impression : TONE b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing
Definitions a and b depend on an observer for a sound to exist whereas definition c differentiates sound and hearing.
Definition c is a physical description so I suppose in this sense a sound would exist if no listener were present.
Here the definition of 'watched' is key. Also the definition of observer seems to be essential. Is a 'particle' an observer? For sure. If the action is resonant to his system: when 'it' notices the effects. We could ask a similar - stupid - question: Will apples grow on the apple-tree when there are no human observers anymore? Sure. Apples will still fall and provoke new apple trees. Gravity still will work. Measurement is just a human bookkeeping of certain aspects of nature but don't influence the basic or general processes.Originally posted by DrChinese
Doesn't seem all that absurd, really. No different really than the Aspect experiments. I.e. assuming that quantum particles have discrete values when not being watched, which we now know cannot be demonstrated. I would call that the equivalent of the tree in the forest, what would you call it?
The concept of an electron being everywhere at once is based on the theory of quantum mechanics, which states that particles such as electrons can exist in multiple places simultaneously.
An electron can be in multiple places at the same time due to its wave-like nature. According to the principles of quantum mechanics, the position of an electron is described by a probability distribution rather than a definite location.
No, it is not possible to directly observe an electron being everywhere at once. This concept is based on mathematical equations and theories, and cannot be observed in the physical world.
Yes, according to the principle of quantum mechanics, the act of observing an electron causes its position to collapse into a single location. This is known as the "observer effect".
The concept of an electron being everywhere at once has led to the development of technologies such as quantum computers and quantum cryptography. It also helps us understand the behavior of particles at the atomic and subatomic level.