Random particle movement (with pictures)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the movement of particles in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the randomness of particle interactions and outcomes in a hypothetical experimental setup involving receptor boxes. The scope includes theoretical interpretations of quantum behavior and the implications of decoherence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a thought experiment involving two identical receptor boxes to explore whether particle readouts would be the same under identical initial conditions.
  • Another participant questions the distinction between the proposed quantum scenario and classical statistical mechanics.
  • Some participants suggest that particles move in a random, uncaused manner, referencing particle scattering as a basis for this view.
  • It is noted that quantum mechanics (QM) provides probabilities for outcomes rather than definitive paths for particles, leading to different readouts in repeated experiments.
  • Questions arise about the physical processes that create randomness in quantum mechanics, with some participants expressing uncertainty about the underlying mechanisms.
  • There is a discussion about the applicability of quantum mechanics to larger particles, such as carbon fullerenes, and whether the principles discussed extend beyond atomic scales.
  • Participants explore the role of constructive and destructive interference in affecting probabilities, with some suggesting that these effects do not fundamentally alter the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics.
  • One participant inquires if frequent particle interactions in gases or liquids could influence the randomness of outcomes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of particle movement and randomness in quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on the implications of decoherence or the extent to which classical mechanics applies to the quantum scenario described.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on interpretations of quantum mechanics and the lack of clarity on the physical processes that lead to observed randomness. The discussion also highlights the complexity of applying quantum principles to larger particles.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring quantum mechanics, particle physics, and the philosophical implications of randomness in scientific theories.

squeehunter
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to understand the movement of particles due to quantum mechanics. I made this image. It is a magical receptor box. Every time an H atom strikes a receptor, the letter associated with that receptor shows up as a read out on a computer. For example if a H atom hits the top receptor, it would read out "a". Every time a receptor is hit, another letter is added. You might see "abebdceavaaabedcdea" after a second.

What I want to know is, if you could have two "universes" (this has nothing to do with alternate universes) each with its own receptor box, with the EXACT SAME initial conditions for EVERY variable (same temperature, same exact position of H atoms, etc), and after 10 seconds, you freeze time and look at the computers, will the read outs be the same? Would one say "cebeadcbea" and once say "decbccbbaaaebca"?

Basically, do they move randomly? If they do, does decoherence stop their random movement since they will obviously collide with each other or the walls of the box. [edit] When I say random movement, I do NOT mean normal bouncing around like a bunch of rubber balls in a box. I mean random movement because of whatever quantum forces.

[PLAIN]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7637/tankdu.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see how this any different that classical statistical mechanics. What am I missing here?

Zz.
 
While it seems similar, I was under the impression from three Physics professors that small particles move in a random, uncaused fashion. Something about particle scattering?
 
Last edited:
squeehunter said:
will the read outs be the same? Would one say "cebeadcbea" and once say "decbccbbaaaebca"?
They wouldn't be the same, so the result would be something like what you're suggesting.

It seems that what you're visualizing is an essentially classical view of what's going on. In particular, you're assuming that particles have positions. Since QM doesn't actually say that they do, we shouldn't assume that they do.

These things are discussed in this thread. See post #51 for my conclusion.
 
Basically, particles have a mind of their own? That's all I'm trying to find out.
 
QM doesn't tell you what the particles are doing. It just tells you how to calculate the probability of each result like decbccbbaaaebca.
 
Okay, so why would you get different combinations of letters each time then?
 
If you want an answer that has something to do with QM, all I can say is "because the probabilities assigned by QM aren't always 0 or 1". I can't tell you why a quantum theory makes better predictions than all classical theories. I don't think anyone can.
 
I don't mean why as in "Why?". I'm aware no one knows. I mean, what actually goes on physically, to create the randomness.
 
  • #10
As I said, QM doesn't tell you that. So what theory do you want me to use to answer it?
 
  • #11
Sorry, I didn't know you meant it like that. Does this apply to particles larger than atoms? The double slit experiment was preformed with carbon fullerenes but I'm not sure if that applies to this.
 
  • #12
Yes, my answer applies in that case too.
 
  • #13
Last question then. Do the effects of constructive and destructive interference remove any of this randomness?
 
Last edited:
  • #14
It can change the probabilities to either 0 or 1 in some very specific situations, but we would still have to use QM to find that result, so those situations aren't fundamentally different.
 
  • #15
Would coming in contact with each other very often as in particles in a gas or liquid be one of those cases?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad The Mystery of Atomic Decay: Is it Truly Random or is There More at Play?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Undergrad Would this experiment prove or disprove quantum randomness?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Graduate Heisenberg picture and Path integrals (Zee QFT)
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Graduate Number of particles in canonical ensemble
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Question about quantum superposition
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Symmetries of particle interacting with external fields (Ballentine)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Instantly reformable wave packets instead of "particles"?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Undergrad Parallel universes and randomness
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Importance of Densities in QFT
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate I have some naive questions about the Reeh-Schlieder theorem
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K