Are All Fundamental Particles Truly Pointlike?

[Fra]

Hello Fred! I am usually selective in reading like most people I guess, due to time constraints. I'm not "following" all the discussions there nor here. My main purposes for participating is two, the first one is the exchanged ideas that is relevant to what I'm doing and to perhaps learn from othre peoples ideas and knowledge. So for me, these forums are all about ideas.

The other point, is when I bump into discussion where I think I can provide useful ideas or encouragement. Not everyone on these forums are experts, but even the non-experts but even experts used to be non-experts. And in particular when it comes to the QM issues, I have a feeling most people who studied physics has gone through some phases. It's completely natural to question the new concepts in the light of what you've learned in the past. I went though this process myself. But at this state I'm not as aroused by debating it as I perhaps was, I usually comment only if I think I can feed somebody elses process.

Is there a particular thread you refer to over there?

/Fredrik

 

[malawi_glenn]

Where did i throw HUP at you?

Now two discussions arose, 1. electron as point particle; 2. double slit experiment of electron beam.

When you measure the particle properties of the electron, it is a point particle. When you measure its wave properties, you get something else. This is what QM is all about; superposition of states, operators, particle-wave duality and so on. Get used to it. If you never had taken QM classes before, start with that

I don't see how throwing Heisenberg at me is an answer the question? I know that any measurement or attempt to observe the electrons path will affect the path. What I am asking is how an electron interferes with itself? The path that a single electron takes is the same as those taken by streams of electrons. It is an interfering pattern. I think that this goes beyond the math.

I've been looking through the archives. Over and over again the concept of one electron/ two slit phenomenon is somehow misconstrewed as being a stream. Everytime this topic comes up the same references are made to the Uncertainty principle, the shrodinger equation, the QM texts, that the math explains the electrons behaviour. There is no doubt about these truths.

The question is how a single point particle or even a single cloud of charge (whatever its boundary), at a frequency or scintillation count that guarantees that only one electron is moving towards the two slits at a time, so that with the highest degree of probability a single electron is making its way through the slits, with enough time between electrons, that it can be considered entirely alone. Then and only then how does the electron intefere with itself and thereby follow the interference paths that quantum mechanics has so well defined?

The only explanation that I can make is the one that I have given. ( above) That particles may be construed as a point as an origin of some process that connects them to the surrounding space. That this connection needs to be both simultaneously connected with the surrounding space to effect change within that space, and then discontiuous with that space in order for it to have its own inertia. This argument allows for the electron to exist both as a point wherein the volume may be a minimum and it may also extend the nature of the electron to the fields that surround it. An electron would therefore be defined by both its center and the process and the physical consequences of that process that extend into the surrounding space.

In conclusion, an electron may pass through one slit as a particle and an origin of some force. The effect that it has upon the surronding field may extend to the second slit, become discontinous from the source, radiate through and to the other side, and in a secondary reflection or resonance of the electrons inherent nature, cause the electron to follow a path of interference...

This at least is an attempt to answer the question. Yes it is more philosophically minded. But at least it is an attempt to answer the question.

I thank you for your patience. Your time and your insight. I shall now withdraw from this discussion because it is clear that the answer to my question is either beyond QM or as Hericlitus would say... I have been told but fail to listen, to comprehend.etc If that is the case then I am sorry. I really like what you guys are doing here. Keep up the good work.

Sean Torrebadell

 

[Hurkyl]

Then and only then how does the electron intefere with itself and thereby follow the interference paths that quantum mechanics has so well defined?

The only explanation that I can make is the one that I have given.

There's another, obvious one: "the math".

I said it humorously, but I meant it seriously: how can we expect any other type of explanation make sense? It seems to me that you are making an implicit assumption that there are "greater principles" to which all quantum phenomena can be reduced, and furthermore that you already understand those greater principles. But upon what grounds can such an assumption be made? Without justification, such an assumption is not reasonable: it's simply arrogant.


It's unreasonable to think you can learn quantum mechanics without learning quantum mechanics. Even if you don't want to spend the time to get a physics degree, you can still come to understand some of the simpler aspects... but only if you're willing to learn it as quantum mechanics.

 

[Phred101.2]

malawi_glen:
You seem to be presuming something here though. Is it that you believe QM must somehow be 'wrong', or some kind of self-sustaining delusion that, since it isn't intuitive to our 'classical' brains, means there is something 'wrong' with the view? I think a guy called Descartes has looked at this one already.
We can only try to explain the phenomena, and, being stuck inside "non-quantum' brains makes this tricky. But it's hard to argue with a semiconductor industry, lasers, PET scanners, and quantum dots...

 

[malawi_glenn]

Phred101.2

Descartes lived in the 16th century or something like that..

My standpoint is that Qm is correct and are trying to explain the unbelivers that altough QM contradicts or dayly life experience, it is the way nature seem to work.

So please read this thread again before accusing me for not believe in QM!

 

[Phred101.2]

Whoops -misdirected post, yes I see that you seem to be a true believer: please redirect to a Philosophy student...