I If you shoot an electron at a wall....

[vanhees71]

This contradicts the best theory we have about particles, which is QT, according to which there are no determined trajectories in the sense of classical physics.

 

[mike1000]

This contradicts the best theory we have about particles, which is QT, according to which there are no determined trajectories in the sense of classical physics.

Does this imply that a trajectory could reverse direction and take a different path before reaching its final destination? If so, is this one way to explain interference patterns?

 

[weirdoguy]

It cannot be a fact

Well, then all QM books and physicists lie to the world.

 

[vanhees71]

Does this imply that a trajectory could reverse direction and take a different path before reaching its final destination? If so, is this one way to explain interference patterns?

There are no trajectories, and QT explains interference patterns (of probability distributions) as observed.

 

[mike1000]

Well, then all QM books and physicists lie to the world.

Well, unfortuantely, that can be true. The wave-particle duality comes to mind.

 

[weirdoguy]

The wave-particle duality comes to mind.

In that sense, that is true That is why one should learn science from textbooks, not pop-sci books.

 

[mike1000]

In that sense, that is true That is why one should learn science from textbooks, not pop-sci books.

Textbooks have their own unique set of problems.(no pun intended).

 

[weirdoguy]

Maybe, but none of them textbooks will tell you that particle takes any trajectory. That is not intuitive, but you really have to gice up most of your classical thinking.

Btw, am I the only one who didn't have any problem in giving up my classical intuitions? I was always like "oh, ok", and most of my collegues got into looong discussions during QM lectures...

 

[PeterDonis]

As far as I know, interference has never been observed for a single particle. It always takes a system of at least two or more particles to observe interference patterns.

This is obviously false, since as DrClaude pointed out, the double slit experiment can be run with only one particle at a time, and you still get an interference pattern.

I think what you are implying is that QM really cannot say anything about a single particle.

This is obviously false as well. QM does not say a single particle has a definite path, but that's a long way from not saying anything at all about a single particle.

This suggests to me that the single particle does indeed follow some path.

Garbage in, garbage out.

If you say that is false, please provide a link.

Any QM textbook will do.

Textbooks have their own unique set of problems

You can always go directly to the original peer-reviewed papers if you have questions about what a textbook is telling you. What you can't do is just decide not to believe the textbooks because "they have problems".

 

[PeterDonis]

The OP's question has been more than sufficiently addressed. Thread closed.