A electron can exist in everywhere ?

[big_bounce]

Hello all .
In quantum physics there are any theory that says a electron or Partial of electron exist in everywhere in universe ?
Means a electron in other side me can exist Partial of it in 300000 light year ?

 

[dextercioby]

There's no such thing as a part of an electron, not according to the commonly accepted (textbook material) theories.

 

[Khashishi]

The wave function of an electron can exist everywhere. But the observed position is just in one spot. The electric field from the electron also extends indefinitely far in its light cone.

 

[AbsoluteZer0]

Quantum superposition states that a physical system, in your case an electron, exists in all of its possible configurations simultaneously. However, when observed or measured, the results of the measurement correspond to only one of the possible states.

 

[G-sound]

Particles being everywhere - is this a compelling reason to question that the world might be fake and not real?

 

[Amok]

Particles being everywhere - is this a compelling reason to question that the world might be fake and not real?

Not really, I don't really see the connection, lol :D

 

[G-sound]

Not really, I don't really see the connection, lol :D

Particles being everywhere at once. This isn't the world we encounter daily, is it? Particles are supposed to have positions and velocities, or at least that's what my experience so far suggests.

 

[Drakkith]

Particles being everywhere at once. This isn't the world we encounter daily, is it? Particles are supposed to have positions and velocities, or at least that's what my experience so far suggests.

The particles are not everywhere at once. The WAVEFUNCTION, which is a mathematical formula used to predict where the electron MIGHT be, says it has a range of locations. This does not mean that the electron will be in two places at once. If you interact with the electron, it will only be in one place at a time.

 

[G-sound]

The particles are not everywhere at once. The WAVEFUNCTION, which is a mathematical formula used to predict where the electron MIGHT be, says it has a range of locations. This does not mean that the electron will be in two places at once. If you interact with the electron, it will only be in one place at a time.

Aren't wavefunction and particle 2 aspects of the same thing?

 

[Amok]

Particles being everywhere at once. This isn't the world we encounter daily, is it? Particles are supposed to have positions and velocities, or at least that's what my experience so far suggests.

So what you mean is that what we observe is actually not real, but some underlying world is?

Aren't wavefunction and particle 2 aspects of the same thing?

No. A particle (or a group of particles) has a wavefunction. I think you're getting confused because people talk about wave-particle duality, wherein particles display both particule and wave behaviors. However, particles in quantum physics do not have the same meaning as in classical physics (very tiny solid objects) and a wavefunction isn't a classical wave either.

 

[G-sound]

No. A particle (or a group of particles) has a wavefunction. I think you're getting confused because people talk about wave-particle duality, wherein particles display both particule and wave behaviors. However, particles in quantum physics do not have the same meaning as in classical physics (very tiny solid objects) and a wavefunction isn't a classical wave either.

Are you claiming that the wave nature of particles is a myth? What exactly are you saying - that particles can behave as waves but the wave nature isn't real? That makes no sense, you are contradicting yourself. Either the wave nature of particles is real or it isn't. For consistency reasons, you can only choose one not both and argue both ways.

 

[Amok]

Are you claiming that the wave nature of particles is a myth? What exactly are you saying - that particles can behave as waves but the wave nature isn't real? That makes no sense, you are contradicting yourself. Either the wave nature of particles is real or it isn't. For consistency reasons, you can only choose one not both and argue both ways.

No, I'm saying a particle (in the quantum sense of the word), can display both wave-like and particle-like behavior (in the classical sense of the word). A wavefunction is not a wave though.

 

[Drakkith]

Are you claiming that the wave nature of particles is a myth? What exactly are you saying - that particles can behave as waves but the wave nature isn't real? That makes no sense, you are contradicting yourself. Either the wave nature of particles is real or it isn't. For consistency reasons, you can only choose one not both and argue both ways.

He said nothing of the sort. The wave-like properties of an electron are because of the wavefunction. (Or rather, the wavefunction is because the electron has wave-like properties) But you cannot say that the particles is located everywhere that the wavefunction says it might be at, because when we measure it we only detect it in one place.

 

[G-sound]

You are both not addressing the question i raised.

"because when we measure it we only detect it in one place. " ...doesn't address the issue of whether particles and reality exist at all times and esp. before detection. The fact that an electron is calculated and verified experiemntally to behave exactly according to qm rules suggests that the electron is in all of its possible positions. Or if you argue that the wavefunction isn't real, then only detections are real(reality isn't real), which is the same answer just coming from the opposite direction.

 

[Amok]

The fact that an electron is calculated and verified experiemntally to behave exactly according to qm rules suggests that the electron is in all of its possible positions.

That's just not true.

Moreover, an electron can exist before you detect it, and it can be in a superposition of states, which doesn't necessarily mean that it 'exists several places at once'.

G-sound, bear in mind that we cannot measure or otherwise observe the wavefunction itself, it is not a physical object, it's a mathematical abstraction from which we can extract information about the current state a of a particle or system of particles.

 

[Drakkith]

You are both not addressing the question i raised.

"because when we measure it we only detect it in one place. " ...doesn't address the issue of whether particles and reality exist at all times and esp. before detection. The fact that an electron is calculated and verified experiemntally to behave exactly according to qm rules suggests that the electron is in all of its possible positions. Or if you argue that the wavefunction isn't real, then only detections are real(reality isn't real), which is the same answer just coming from the opposite direction.

This has nothing to do with "reality existing". No matter what our theory says it's obvious reality exists, even if we describe it incorrectly.

As to whether the particle itself exists everywhere at the same time is...complicated. First, we would need to decide what that even means. To date I don't believe anyone has been able to come up with an accepted interpretation of what the wavefunction means in a non-mathematical way.

 

[G-sound]

No, I'm saying a particle (in the quantum sense of the word), can display both wave-like and particle-like behavior (in the classical sense of the word). A wavefunction is not a wave though.

When it acts as if it's in all possible states at once in the universe, and some pretty complicated machinary depends on this wave nature of electrons, what does it say about the world?

 

[G-sound]

This has nothing to do with "reality existing". No matter what our theory says it's obvious reality exists, even if we describe it incorrectly.
.

I'd say you are right that it exists though I am far less certain how and when it does.

 

[Drakkith]

When it acts as if it's in all possible states at once in the universe, and some pretty complicated machinary depends on this wave nature of electrons, what does it say about the world?

That the particle obeys the mathematical laws developed by QM. That's it.

I'd say you are right that it exists though I am far less certain how and when it dose.

Please, leave ramblings on reality out of this thread. They don't pertain to the thread at all and only serve to confuse people.

 

[Amok]

When it acts as if it's in all possible states at once in the universe, and some pretty complicated machinary depends on this wave nature of electrons, what does it say about the world?

It never acts (it is never seen, or measured to be) as if it were in many different states at once. That's one of the founding concepts of quantum mechanics. Whether the particle actually is in superposition of states when it is not observed is a question of philosophy. I still don't see how this has anything to do with the reality of our world, because that electron is still real, whether it is in a superposition of states or not.

 

[G-sound]

That the particle obeys the mathematical laws developed by QM. That's it.

No, all physical laws should describe the world we observe. If they describe differently, then either the laws are wrong or the world we observe isn't quite the idea we have of it.

 

[G-sound]

It never acts (it is never seen, or measured to be) as if it were in many different states at once. That's one of the founding concepts of quantum mechanics. Whether the particle actually is in superposition of states when it is not observed is a question of philosophy. I still don't see how this has anything to do with the reality of our world, because that electron is still real, whether it is in a superposition of states or not.

Is a bacteria in superposition real? What about something even bigger? By 'real' do you mean just what is observed or do you also include things that are not? If the former, why did you even try to muddle the question i asked?

 

[Amok]

No, all physical laws should describe the world we observe.

And they do, quantum mechanics is a theory about what we observe, exclusively about that actually. No can observe electrons in a superposition of states, for example, and qm doesn't say you can.

Is a bacteria in superposition real? What about something even bigger? By 'real' do you mean just what is observed or do you also include things that are not?

Bacteria aren't really described by quantum physics, as far as I know. I'm not saying that only things that we observe are real, and that things in superpositions aren't real. An electron is real whether it is in a superposition of states or not. Is the superposition itself ever real? No clue, no one knows.

 

[G-sound]

And they do, quantum mechanics is a theory about what we observe, exclusively about that actually. No can observe electrons in a superposition of states, for example, and qm doesn't say you can.

As i said earlier, the wave nature of electrons is widely utilized these days. If it were just a mathematical trick, qm would reduce to classical mechanics. I think you might be confused that classical objects and quantum ones are similar.

PP. I'd say that people trying to prove objective reality solely on qm have already lost the battle.

 

[Drakkith]

As i said earlier, the wave nature of electrons is widely utilized these days. If it were just a mathematical trick, qm would reduce to classical mechanics. I think you might be confused that classical objects and quantum ones are similar.

I think you should look and see what superposition really is. No one here is saying that the wave nature of electrons doesn't exist or is a trick.

PP. I'd say that people trying to prove objective reality solely on qm have already lost the battle.

How so?

 

[G-sound]

I think you should look and see what superposition really is.

Tell me.

No one here is saying that the wave nature of electrons doesn't exist or is a trick.

Tell me what it is you are saying, not what you are not saying. You've beeen saying that reality is real because we obviously observe it(great argument) and because when you detect it, you've found it to exist(how surprizing). If the wave nature of electrons is real and exists as you suggest, electrons are not localized in spacetime and this violates known laws and principles of classical physics(as well as the notion of objective reality)

How so?

First look up the commonly established criteria for objective reality and compare them with qm. You might want to read a bit on qm before you start with the criteria though.

 

[Drakkith]

Tell me.

There are plenty of references online that a quick google search will provide. Have you read any of those? Have you read more than one source? If so, what questions do you have about it?

Tell me what it is you are saying, not what you are not saying. You've beeen saying that reality is real because we obviously observe it(great argument) and because when you detect it, you've found it to exist(how surprizing).

No, nothing about measuring the electron has been construed into being something about reality. Reality is, arguable, ill defined and not appropriate for discussion as such. What we HAVE been saying is that the wavefunction PREDICTS WHERE THE PARTICLE WILL BE. That's it. You've misconstrued that into saying "particles don't behave like waves". This is not true, as we've explained more than once.

If the wave nature of electrons is real and exists as you suggest, electrons are not localized in spacetime and this violates known laws and principles of classical physics(as well as the notion of objective reality)

They appear in one place, and ONLY one place whenever we interact with and detect them. QM says nothing about them "spreading out" over space. That is only the wavefunction, where they may appear next. As I've said already we have NO interpretation of what the wave function is, other than a mathematical tool, that is widely accepted as the "best" interpretation. As far as I know at least.

First look up the commonly established criteria for objective reality and compare them with qm. You might want to read a bit on qm before you start with the criteria though.

I'm not going to play this game. Either explain what you mean, or don't bother posting it.

 

[G-sound]

There are plenty of references online that a quick google search will provide. Have you read any of those? Have you read more than one source? If so, what questions do you have about it?

You said i had to learn more about superposition, now you are asking what i want to know about it?

No, nothing about measuring the electron has been construed into being something about reality. Reality is, arguable, ill defined and not appropriate for discussion as such. What we HAVE been saying is that the wavefunction PREDICTS WHERE THE PARTICLE WILL BE. That's it.

No, you are wrong. The wave nature is not just a mathematical trick for predicting where a particle might be. It's an aspect of what a particle is and a particle is actually both a wave and a particle. Diodes, transistors, electron microscopes... all use the wave aspect of electrons, so saying that its wave nature is just a calculational trick is just plain wrong.

You've misconstrued that into saying "particles don't behave like waves". This is not true, as we've explained more than once.

I've said no such thing.

They appear in one place, and ONLY one place whenever we interact with and detect them. QM says nothing about them "spreading out" over space.

Look up Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, also the spreading out is part of nature and the basis of modern electronics. Furthermore, look for "devices that use qunatum mechanics" on google to get a better idea how much of a role the wave nature of particle plays these days.

I'm not going to play this game. Either explain what you mean, or don't bother posting it.

I'd use the reality criterion that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen chose for their attempt to prove qm was incomplete, that later turned against them with Bell/Aspect. It was a case of reductio ad absurdum on their side that to their dismay turned true.

Whether the wavefunction is real or not doesn't change the core of the argument - we have an excellent theory with verified predictions but the predictions go against common sense and preconceived notions that most people consider obvious and true - like chairs, tables, cats and moons...

 

[Drakkith]

No, you are wrong. The wave nature is not just a mathematical trick for predicting where a particle might be. It's an aspect of what a particle is and a particle is actually both a wave and a particle. Diodes, transistors, electron microscopes... all use the wave aspect of electrons, so saying that its wave nature is just a calculational trick is just plain wrong.

I give up. If you are going to take everything out of context, not listen, not put the effort into learning, and accuse us of saying things we haven't then I will have no more of this thread.

Look up Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, also the spreading out is part of nature and the basis of modern electronics. Furthermore, look for "devices that use qunatum mechanics" on google to get a better idea how much of a role the wave nature of particle plays these days.

A perfect example of what I just said.

 

[Amok]

I feel like he's trolling us. Repeating stuff he read somewhere else without understanding it.