The discussion revolves around the nature of movement at the quantum level, specifically whether movement is an illusion in the quantum field. Participants explore concepts related to quantum mechanics, including particle existence, measurement, and the implications of quantum tunneling. The conversation touches on both theoretical interpretations and philosophical implications of these ideas.
Participants express a range of views on the nature of movement and identity at the quantum level, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the peculiarities of quantum behavior, while others challenge interpretations and implications, indicating ongoing debate.
Limitations include varying interpretations of quantum mechanics, the dependence on specific definitions of movement and identity, and unresolved questions about the implications of quantum tunneling and measurement. The discussion reflects a mix of technical reasoning and philosophical inquiry.
GEOFFB said:I have been told that nothing actually moves through space at the smallest level in the quantum field.
ZapperZ said:Who told you this?
For future references, whenever you want us to explain things that you read, heard about, or were told, you must cite the source. Or else, we only have your interpretation of what you read, heard, or were told to go by.
Zz.
cadnr said:According to quantum theory particles only exist at a particular point in space at the exact moment of measurement. At other times the existence of the particle is undefined. At least, that's my interpretation of the theory. This means that particles can move from place to place without existing in between. This would only be true for quantum systems though, and wouldn't be true for the system of interdependent particles that make up your arm.
confusedashell said:So basically, when I move my arm, I move it, it's not like what makes up my arm are exchanged with whatever was in the place I moved my arm to? lol
Yes it does. That's what indistinguishable means.It may be indistinguishable from the previous atom, but that doesn't mean it's the same atom does it? .
Mentz114 said:Sounds like an idea that would appeal to mystics.
colorSpace said:I think it is time to mention the term 'tunneling', where something may appear at a new location without being able (AFAIK) to be located in the in-between locations.
ZapperZ said:No, I don't think we should talk about tunneling, because the same can be said about any QM system described by plane-wave states.
Note that if I put magnetic particles in a tunneling barrier, I can affect the tunneling properties of electrons tunneling through that barrier in the form of an increase in inelastic tunneling (versus the regular ballistic tunneling). Thus, this already tells you that the electrons had to pass through that "in-between locations", or else, why would it matter that I had magnetic particles in the barrier?
Zz.
This is the mysterious part of QM. Things do tunnel, and 'ignore' barriers. No point asking how, it just happens, and has been experimentally tested.How then, if I may ask, is the electron able to ignore the forces that would keep it on its side of the barrier?
colorSpace said:How then, if I may ask, is the electron able to ignore the forces that would keep it on its side of the barrier?
ZapperZ said:Note that if I put magnetic particles in a tunneling barrier, I can affect the tunneling properties of electrons tunneling through that barrier in the form of an increase in inelastic tunneling (versus the regular ballistic tunneling). Thus, this already tells you that the electrons had to pass through that "in-between locations", or else, why would it matter that I had magnetic particles in the barrier?
This effect [the Aharonov-Bohm effect] demonstrates that a magnetic line of flux can produce observable modifications of an electron interference pattern, even though the electrons themselves never encounter a magnetic field.
colorSpace said:By coincidence, I just found this quote in Bohm & Hiley "The Undivided universe", page 50:
To be honest, I don't understand very much of what is said here, however it kind of sounds like it might be a good response to your objection. :)
ZapperZ said:This also has nothing to do with your assertion that it doesn't move through the barrier, because I could also ask you the same question on how your electron is able to ignore the "forces" to simply skip the barrier and appear on the other side.
ZapperZ said:No, it isn't. Because it is the same thing as the "phase slip" that we observe in superconducting loops in SQUIDs. You are then faced with trying to explain how affecting something doesn't affect it, which is an oxymoron.