# Do bosons contradict basic probability laws?

• A
• Philip Koeck
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of mutually exclusive events and how they relate to probability theory. It is explained that for distinguishable particles, the probabilities of different distributions are mutually exclusive and add up to the total probability. However, for bosons which are indistinguishable, the probabilities of different distributions do not add up in the same way. This is because the probability distribution depends on the state in which the particles are prepared, and different states can have different probabilities for the same event. The conversation also touches on the idea that what can be measured in an experiment can affect the probabilities observed.
PeroK said:
Each particle in a bubble chamber is essentially an isolated system. The particles do not interact with each other and are clearly not in thermal equilibrium.

Also, these lines are not continuous. At the atomic level they are formed by a sequence of discrete collisions. They only look continuous at a macroscopic scale.
Let's think of the gas of clusters which is monitored by 3D-video.
Even if there are no long range forces between the clusters they would still collide and form a system that tries to achieve thermal equilibrium, just like an ideal gas. The question is whether this equilibrium will be that of distinguishable or indistinguishable particles.

I realize that the lines won't be continuous even in a video, but they would suggest a straight classical path, from which I would conclude that it's always the same particle on a given path.

weirdoguy
Philip Koeck said:
Let's think of the gas of clusters which is monitored by 3D-video.
And if you had a 3D video of a hydrogen atom then you'd see precisely where the electron was at all times and could plot its classical orbit round the nucleus.

You can't just pretend that there is no such thing as QM. That if you have a 3D video camera that QM will just "go away".

Well, such a 3D cam itself cannot exist because of QT. One should also be aware that classical statistical physics is incomplete. Boltzmann and Gibbs had a lot of problems with particularly the distinguishability of classical particles (Gibbs's paradox, how to gauge phase-space cells, etc.), all of which are solved with many-body QT of indistinguishable particles, and that the distributions are rather Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac distributions than Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions is an empirical fact, explaining a lot of other problems related to a classical statistical model.

DrClaude and PeroK
Philip Koeck said:
Let's think of the gas of clusters which is monitored by 3D-video.

Let's close this thread since it is now degenerating into personal speculation.

vanhees71

• Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
878
• Quantum Physics
Replies
0
Views
190
• Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
953
• Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
• Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
21
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
831
• Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K