Question about quantum mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of quantum mechanics, specifically the concept of wave-particle duality and the implications of observation on the state of matter. Participants explore the nature of matter as waves and the phenomenon often referred to as "wave function collapse," while addressing misconceptions and analogies related to classical concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that matter behaves as waves and becomes "solid" upon observation, though this is challenged by others.
  • One participant questions the analogy used, suggesting that the waves in quantum mechanics are complex valued mappings rather than classical wave types.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the concept of "wave function collapse" does not equate to matter becoming solid.
  • It is noted that observation limits the ability to generalize about unobserved states, particularly in macroscopic contexts where quantum effects are negligible due to the smallness of Planck's constant.
  • There is a claim that the standard model describes matter as point particles, which remains true regardless of observation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of matter and the effects of observation, indicating that multiple competing interpretations exist without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on specific interpretations of quantum mechanics and may depend on the definitions of terms like "wave function collapse" and "solid." The discussion does not resolve these interpretations.

drews
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
From what I understand, the idea is that matter is waves, but it becomes solid when observed.

Obviously that's not the case- the matter obviously isn't self-aware and changes when we look at it. It's obvious that our eyes are designed to see waves as solid matter, kinda like when you look at a magic eye poster and cross your eyes and suddenly the waves come together to look like a solid image.

Okay, when do I get my nobel prize?:cool:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
drews said:
From what I understand, the idea is that matter is waves, but it becomes solid when observed.

You seem to be using some kind of analogy to previous classical concepts. Do you know what kind of waves these are? Not like sound waves, but complex valued mappings [itex]\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{C}[/itex]. There is a thing called "wave function collapse", but it is not very close to "something becoming solid".

Okay, when do I get my nobel prize?:cool:

When you are good enough. Hopefully not before me. Good luck, and try to be more careful here in physics forums in the future.
 
jostpuur said:
You seem to be using some kind of analogy to previous classical concepts. Do you know what kind of waves these are? Not like sound waves, but complex valued mappings [itex]\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{C}[/itex]. There is a thing called "wave function collapse", but it is not very close to "something becoming solid".

Right, so when you look at the waves they appear solid to you, right?
 
bump thread
 
You can't observe what stuff does when you're not looking at it, obviously, so strictly speaking you cannot generalize what you see to what you don't.

From what I understand, the idea is that matter is waves, but it becomes solid when observed.

If we're speaking about macroscopic matter ("things"), the indetermined state before observation is not that important. This is because Planck's constant is extremely small in this reference frame, so even if you could see things without causing wave function collapse you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference.

This is why quantum mechanics were largely unnoticed until ~10^2 years ago.
 
drews said:
From what I understand, the idea is that matter is waves, but it becomes solid when observed.

No, the standard model says matter is point particles. It remains so, no matter if you observe it or not.

Okay, when do I get my nobel prize?:cool:

Literature? maybe:biggrin:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K