- #36
rewebster
- 877
- 2
I wonder if they tested for 'charge' on the oil drops?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-drop_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-drop_experiment
lalbatros said:Just to say that the model equation shown under reference 10 of the paper explains rather completely what happens.
OOO said:Hmm, there seems to be a typo in this equation. They speak of two terms on the RHS whereas there is a second 'equals'. So I guess the second '=' should be a '-' because the second term is described as viscous damping.
mn4j said:This is a beautiful experiment. Probably the most beautiful I've seen on the subject of interference patterns. I'm still reading it and it very well may be key to understanding what REALLY happens when photons, electrons, etc pass through slits, as opposed to "wavefunction collapse" hoopla. One thing to note as you read is the difference between the waves being discussed. Particularly:
- The droplet is always a particle
- It interacts with it's environment through the wave-like disturbance
- It's interaction with it's environment determines it's trajectory
- It's path through the slit determines where it ends up on the detector
- Not all paths have the same probability, with the probabilities matching the classical single slit diffraction pattern.
- knowing the path of the particle does not in any way affect the result!
- The particles are localized throughout the experiment
The results of this paper are frightfully close to Randell Mills' explanation of the double slit experiment in his CQM theory.
lalbatros said:The "wavefunction collapse hoopla” is just an easy axiomatic shortcut.
It is actually an interaction process.
But the detailled analysis of this process is not necessarily useful for the overall understanding and it is certainly very complicated.
Just as it is meaningless to explain the human behaviour from atomic physics, it is also meaningless to explain the "hoopla" from detailled interactions. (but it has a meaning for the scientific principles and should studied and understood for itself)
Anonym said:Do you understand what you wrote? I am certainly not. And we certainly understand the spontaneous phase transitions. In addition, my dictionary says hoop-la: noise (e), balagan (h), tararam (r).
Regards, Dany.
Anonym said:Do you understand what you wrote? I am certainly not. And we certainly understand the spontaneous phase transitions. In addition, my dictionary says hoop-la: noise (e), balagan (h), tararam (r).
Regards, Dany.
Therefore, it has nothing to do with photons and may provide the complementary understanding of the situation, but not “what REALLY happens when photons, electrons, etc pass through slits, as opposed to "wavefunction collapse" hoopla”.
lalbatros said:I was just quoting you.
Here is the original sentense:
lalbatros said:In physics I think indeed that the wf collapse is a shortcut to avoid useless complications, therefore it is -for me- similar to a trick.
But a useful trick.
lalbatros said:The rest of my prose was a digression about reductionism in science.
lalbatros said:I don't see the link with phase transitions
Sorry, I focused on a thread within the thread!Anonym said:You are not quoting me. You are quoting my quotation of mn4j. Read his post #23, I consider he express himself clearly and that consistent with my dictionary translations to English/Hebrew/Russian.
This is of course subject to discussion.Anonym said:The wave packet collapse is not a trick; it is universally valid experimental fact that must be explained by the physical theory. Again I prefer to quote mn4j:” There exists a physical reality which underlies all scientific inquiry, without which science is meaningless.”
Here we really disagree.Anonym said:I don’t agree with you. I consider that we are pretty close to start investigation of the human brain using understanding of the quantum physics.
Here there must be a misunderstanding with vocabulary.Anonym said:We know the collapse is instant and discontinuous, so what else it may be?
Viva-Diva said:Dear people...thanks for all your replies..but did you forget that I am a layperson.
lalbatros said:Sorry, I focused on a thread within the thread!
lalbatros said:Anonym,I don't see why you mention the brain in this context.
I used the brain myself just to illustrate that reductionism can be useless, a fact that is generally accepted, specially by engineers (I am one).
Anonym said:You forget that you ask to explain the content of the paper published in PRL, October 2006. It is the frontier of the modern physics.
.
lalbatros said:Ok Anonym, as I can see you are more interrested in sociology than in physics.
Viva-Diva said:Wow that makes me happy as I fished out that paper even though I am not a science person. Did you know about this paper already before?
Viva-Diva said:why weren't you aware of it? Being a scientist, don't you keep track of latest litrature?
Anonym said:I try. My research interests now in the relativistic QM and the measurement theory (information). I missed it. A posteriori it is obvious that we should look on fluids first of all. They describe also something totally unexpected and I should return to study hydrodynamics. However, it is better late than never.
lalbatros said:I specially like the Landau & Lifchitz series that I read several time in detail during my engineering hobby time.Other books are Jackson, gravitation by MTW, Weinberg, ...
Twenty years ago I read the collection of papers in "Quantum theory and Measurement" edited by Wheeler.
lalbatros said:This is actually the point of view developped by Landau & Lifchitz in the introductory chapter 7 of "Quantum mechanics".
LinJieFu said:Can anyone help me with this? If so, please do. If you have a paper or text to point me to, that would be great. Here goes: When a double slit experiment with respect to single particle interference is conducted, and only one particle is emitted for the entire event, what is the observed result that suggests that a single particle has interfered with itself?