- #1

walker35867

- 6

- 0

- TL;DR Summary
- If you want to look professional, use functionals.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter walker35867
- Start date

- #1

walker35867

- 6

- 0

- TL;DR Summary
- If you want to look professional, use functionals.

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

Nugatory

Mentor

- 15,050

- 9,717

FIFYwalker35867 said:TL;DR Summary:If you want to look professionalin front of non-professionals, use functionals.

- #3

walker35867

- 6

- 0

but like genuinely speaking, why doesn't the whole idea of having two elements and imagining the wave medium and the particle separately not work? ignoring the post, just theoretically speaking, the ether medium can give a more local explanation for entanglement, then there shouldn't be no need for spooky action. I am aware that this hypothesis is wrong but where is it wrong? P.S. - I am still in university and we just started with the double slit experiment and wave particle duality, the idea didn't sit right with me so i was just looking for an explanation for why doesn't it work.Nugatory said:FIFY

- #4

berkeman

Mentor

- 67,975

- 21,440

Changed your thread title prefix A-->I (now is at undergraduate level).walker35867 said:I am still in university and we just started with the double slit experiment and wave particle duality

- #5

- 14,255

- 6,738

Why do you think so?walker35867 said:the ether medium can give a more local explanation for entanglement,

So you don't even know yet what entanglement is, am I right?walker35867 said:I am still in university and we just started with the double slit experiment and wave particle duality, the idea didn't sit right with me so i was just looking for an explanation for why doesn't it work.

- #6

walker35867

- 6

- 0

entangled particles are connected through the Ether, the changes in one particle can be transmitted locally through the medium to the other particleDemystifier said:Why do you think so?

I think I do understand it, I'm not saying I am an expert but yeahDemystifier said:So you don't even know yet what entanglement is, am I right?

- #7

- 27,568

- 19,091

walker35867 said:I am still in university and we just started with the double slit experiment and wave particle duality, the idea didn't sit right with me

In the theory of QM, there is no wave-particle duality. Instead, these phenomena are described by a wavefunction, from which both classical wave-like and particle-like phenomena emerge and are fully explained.

- #8

walker35867

- 6

- 0

Thank You for your explanation. Now it is more clear to me, but why have we just accepted this interpretation when it doesn't align with our classical understanding?PeroK said:Wave-particle dualitydescribesobserved, experimental phenomenawhere, for example, light forms a wave-like interference pattern, that can be built up from one discrete impact at a time. And, for example, where an electron exhibits diffraction through a crystal.

In the theory of QM, there is no wave-particle duality. Instead, these phenomena are described by a wavefunction, from which both classical wave-like and particle-like phenomena emerge and are fully explained.

- #9

- 27,568

- 19,091

QM was accepted by the scientific community in the 1920's because classical physics could not explain experimental results. There was the problem of black-body radiation, the photo-electric effect, electron diffraction and Compton scattering. Not to mention the inability of classical physics to explain the stability of atoms - or atomic structure.walker35867 said:Thank You for your explanation. Now it is more clear to me, but why have we just accepted this interpretation when it doesn't align with our classical understanding?

QM explained all these phenomena, but the price was to accept that classical physics is not fundamental, but emerges at the macroscopic scale.

In the last hundred years, QM has stood the test of time and been extended into QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

- #10

walker35867

- 6

- 0

then why is one system deterministic and the other non-deterministic? doesn't a deterministic system of classical physics imply a lack of knowledge or presence of some hidden variables because a deterministic system can only give rise to a deterministic system? I am confusedPeroK said:QM was accepted by the scientific community in the 1920's because classical physics could not explain experimental results. There was the problem of black-body radiation, the photo-electric effect, electron diffraction and Compton scattering. Not to mention the inability of classical physics to explain the stability of atoms - or atomic structure.

QM explained all these phenomena, but the price was to accept that classical physics is not fundamental, but emerges at the macroscopic scale.

In the last hundred years, QM has stood the test of time and been extended into QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

- #11

- 27,568

- 19,091

It depends what you mean by "deterministic". If you roll one million dice, then you will get a total of approximately 3.5 million every time. Yet, each individual die has an equal chance of being 1-6. That's one way that predictability can emerge from randomness.walker35867 said:then why is one system deterministic and the other non-deterministic? doesn't a deterministic system of classical physics imply a lack of knowledge or presence of some hidden variables because a deterministic system can only give rise to a deterministic system? I am confused

Even without QM, the predictable nature of gases emerges from the random motion of individual molecules. Statistical mechanics predates QM.

What's different about QM is that there are inherent probabilities at the fundamental level. That does not imply that the fundamental probabilities cannot be washed out by the law of large numbers. And, in fact, if you put the numbers into the Uncertainty Principle, then the uncertainty in position/momentum of a macroscopic object (such as a football) is immeasurably small.

- #12

walker35867

- 6

- 0

the roll of a die is very much predictable, the uncertainty only comes in because of its sensitivity to the change in initial condition i.e. small changes in initial conditions can lead to very different outcomes. But as you described in QM it is an inherent property. This sounds made up and more like make it make sense. I don't mean it in a disrespectful way and neither do I have a better alternative but like I've been a little frustrated with the conclusions of it all and the more i tried to understand it, the worse it keeps getting.PeroK said:It depends what you mean by "deterministic". If you roll one million dice, then you will get a total of approximately 3.5 million every time. Yet, each individual die has an equal chance of being 1-6. That's one way that predictability can emerge from randomness.

Even without QM, the predictable nature of gases emerges from the random motion of individual molecules. Statistical mechanics predates QM.

What's different about QM is that there are inherent probabilities at the fundamental level. That does not imply that the fundamental probabilities cannot be washed out by the law of large numbers. And, in fact, if you put the numbers into the Uncertainty Principle, then the uncertainty in position/momentum of a macroscopic object (such as a football) is immeasurably small.

How would I even go about putting numbers for a football in the uncertainty principle?

- #13

- 27,568

- 19,091

You might say that under some circumstances you can predict the roll of a die, but that's a moot point. If I tell you that sometime today I'm going to roll a die, then you have no way to predict the outcome.walker35867 said:the roll of a die is very much predictable, the uncertainty only comes in because of its sensitivity to the change in initial condition i.e. small changes in initial conditions can lead to very different outcomes.

You're avoiding the main observation that statistical physics and statistical modelling are valid approaches. Whether the die is "really" predictable or not is not the issue. The point is that you can predict the statistical outcome of a large number of experiments without predicting the outcome of each experiment. Whether each instance of the experiment is inherently or only practically unpredictable makes no difference.

You made the decision to study physics. The point of a university education is to open your mind to new ideas. You must know that modern physics is not only Newton's Laws. That physics in the 20th century went through the revolutions of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.walker35867 said:But as you described in QM it is an inherent property. This sounds made up and more like make it make sense. I don't mean it in a disrespectful way and neither do I have a better alternative but like I've been a little frustrated with the conclusions of it all and the more i tried to understand it, the worse it keeps getting.

All of modern miniature electronics is based on QM. And all of chemistry. Experiments show that is the way nature works. You have to find a way to come to terms with that.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) roughly states that:walker35867 said:How would I even go about putting numbers for a football in the uncertainty principle?

$$\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac \hbar 2$$The point is that ##\hbar## is a very small number, when expressed in SI units: ##10^{-34} \ Js##. If we take an object with a mass of ##1 kg##, then we can have an uncertainty in velocity of about ##10^{-17} m/s## and (at the same time) an uncertainty in position of ##10^{-17} m##. In practical terms, that is no uncertainty at all, and it hardly makes sense to try to measure the position of a ball to within ##10^{-17} m##.

- #14

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 12,345

- 14,318

OP - in a slightly different demonstration of this same thing, my physics teacher kicked a football through an open door, localising it (even if we hadn't all been watching a teacher kicking a football inside the building ) to ##\sigma_x\approx 1\mathrm{m}## as it passed through. Using PeroK's ##1\mathrm{kg}## football gives a velocity uncertainty of around ##10^{-34}\mathrm{ms^{-1}}##, so we'd have to wait about ##10^{34}\mathrm{s}## for a ##1\mathrm{m}## spread in the football's position. For context, the universe is only about ##10^{17}\mathrm{s}## old.PeroK said:The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) roughly states that:

$$\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac \hbar 2$$The point is that ##\hbar## is a very small number, when expressed in SI units: ##10^{-34} \ Js##. If we take an object with a mass of ##1 kg##, then we can have an uncertainty in velocity of about ##10^{-17} m/s## and (at the same time) an uncertainty in position of ##10^{-17} m##. In practical terms, that is no uncertainty at all, and it hardly makes sense to try to measure the position of a ball to within ##10^{-17} m##.

- #15

- 27,568

- 19,091

The moral is that, as far as the HUP is concerned, size matters. Even though the HUP theoretically applies at all scales.

- #16

- 14,255

- 6,738

How fast do you imagine that this local transmission is? Speed of light? Faster than light? Infinite speed?walker35867 said:entangled particles are connected through the Ether, the changes in one particle can be transmitted locally through the medium to the other particle

I think I do understand it, I'm not saying I am an expert but yeah

- #17

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 47,068

- 23,466

Wherever you are getting this from, it isn't standard QM.walker35867 said:entangled particles are connected through the Ether, the changes in one particle can be transmitted locally through the medium to the other particle

Based on the statement of yours quoted at the start of this post, no, you don't.walker35867 said:I think I do understand it

- Replies
- 36

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

Share: