Do bosons contradict basic probability laws?

[Philip Koeck]

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.

 

[PeroK]

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".

 

[vanhees71]

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

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.