Quantum Mechanics: Wave-Particle Duality & Paradox

[Dmitry67]

>"The observer cannot observe or measure something without changing it"

Actually, it is possible in QM :)

 

[tgt]

>"The observer cannot observe or measure something without changing it"

Actually, it is possible in QM :)

I think he means it is not possible to precisely state the present/current condition. Because doing so would alter it.

But are you suggesting it is possible?

 

[Dmitry67]

I think he means it is not possible to precisely state the present/current condition. Because doing so would alter it.

But are you suggesting it is possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur-Vaidman_bomb-tester

 

[thaddeus]

"all of the apparent paradoxes in Quantum mechanics simply disappear if All things are accepted to be wave forms"

 

[mn4j]

Is a pendulum a wave or a ball attached to a string? It is a ball attached to a string, whose behaviour can be described by a wave equation. Similarly, photons, electrons etc are particles with behaviour which can be described using wave equations.

Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism for predicting the state of a system which exhibits wave-like behaviour, without any regard to the ontological source of the behaviour.

 

[thaddeus]

howdy ..

i'm a bit respectful of others , so tend towards the "ask the pendulum" .. its not for me to say : ) ..

As far as this discussion goes , i am wholly happy to align with the perspective that the Pendulum is a wave ..

The particle classification is only just a classification when compared to the EMF based descriptions .. what does particle mean .. at heart it means a part a.. a small part of a bigger unit.

But the wave nature of things does not in anyway prevent us from interacting with them .. you know the saying that when we touch something we don't actually physically touch it .. we approach it to a point where our force fields act on one another developing a variety of friction states .

Every reference to the "solid state" nature of particles and photons etc is derived from a real world interaction .. there are bound wave forms and liberated wave forms and the spectrum between . The transition between Bound wave forms and the liberated wave forms equates to the transition between say an electron and the photon of energy the electron releases due to some Newtonian type transfer of momentum interaction .

It may seem like a impossible condition to consider all things in terms of the Wave nature , especially when a frame of reference has been established previously .

And truly i do not think any debate over these things is particularly constructive .. Science should stand or fall on its own footing according to how well it can predict behavior .

All i can suggest is that you consider the Wave form ubiquity .. and consider the consequences of "real world particles" actually being Standing/resonant wave forms having structural consistent characteristics .. and the moving wave forms (like photons of light ) as being wave forms who are not nearly so constrained in a resonant system .

See none of the math or Newtonian concepts need be altered at all .. its just painting in shades of grey . All the math will still work just fine , its just that you will find a certain ability to sleep easier and make better progress for not having to attempt matter-energy conversions in your head every time you consider routine Physics interactions .

The wave form nature is the basis for the statistical representation of quantum behavior . Its not that particles are every where at once .. that's sort of a paradox right .. no , its that the waveform is dispersed and the flux of the sum of interactions in the environment means the point of highest probability is also the point where the particle nature (i.e. resonant standing wave form) will be located if a observation is made .

The observation shifts a fluid dispersed wave form into a more compressed version . Similar to the way liquid water is turned to ice .. both are still water but one is fluid and the other less so .

 

[csprof2000]

"It is consistent and does not contain any paradoxes and does not lead to any contradictions.
Paradoxes appear when you try to understand it and it conflicts with an our "common reasoning". "

Still, the reason that wave functions have to be continuous is disturbingly arcane and in no way obvious, while at the same time a foundation of even the most elementary solutions.

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know why wave functions have to be continuous? *quiz*

 

[shaun_o_kane]

"all of the apparent paradoxes in Quantum mechanics simply disappear if All things are accepted to be wave forms"

Nonsense - EPR and similar thought experiments cause serious problems with the idea that the world is described by "waves". Once a measurment is made, how fast does the "wave" collapse? Instantaneously? At the speed of light? Both possiblities have problems.

Even more elementary, the photo-electric effect won Einstein the Noble prize and was instrumental in convincing the world that quanta (particles?) are real and the waveform describing the state of quantum systems changes discontinuously.

You may have guessed that I'm a strong advocate of Copenhagen. The world is neither made of particles or waves - both are unsatisfactory on their own; it is the nature of the experiment which determines which "face" the universe presents to us (Bohr's Complementary Principle)

 

[Dmitry67]

I guess we have a new interpretation appeared in 200x based on the Quantum decoherence.

In 'bird's view' nature is deterministic, is described by waves and there are no particles
In 'frog's view' (for an observer living in our world) nature appears to be random and consisting of particles.
When the number of interacting particles is low or processes are reversible then the wave nature of 'particle' starts to manifest even in the frog's view.

Nature does not know anything about the 'experiments' and 'observers'. There is nothing special about the measurement device, it is just a collection of molecules.

I hope in our millenium we can finally foget about the Copehagen i. In it you first introduce a weird thing (wavefunction collapse) which (based on what we know now is not needed at all), and then you spend years thinking about the 'weird and mysterious properties of wavefunction collapse'.

Exactly the same story which happened to the concept of the Aether - overloaded with too many inconsistent properties and finally not needed at all.