Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Strangle the cat

  1. Mar 13, 2006 #1
    I'm just speculating, but something has recently gotten on my mind. On the quantum level, things act like waves when shot against something, roughly speaking. Yet, when you collapse something on the quantum level's wave function, it acts like matter. So, I was curious about the relationship between matter and waves. Since individually, things seem to act like waves when undisturbed, wouldn't that mean that -everything- would act like a wave?

    What really interests me is the thought that perhaps matter collapses its own wave function. If collapsing a wave function involves either hitting the object or recieving energy from the object to view it, perhaps matter does that on its own. If this were true, wouldn't it somewhat mean that there was some odd type of energy manipulating the way particles functioned?

    It seems rather odd, but it feels like people are trying to categorize this phenominon as one thing, when it really may be two. If matter can actlike both matter and energy, it makes me think of it more like a rain cloud.

    With a rain cloud, you have a lot of water in the air, seperate, in a smaller state on its own, it acts like a gass. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that each droplett of unformed rain is one part of water away from being a rain drop. This; therefore, would have similar effects as the wave function issue.

    When the dropletts come together to form a rain drop, it changes the way it acts. It goes from acting like a gas to acting like a liquid, which cannot stay in the sky, so instead of floating along it falls to the ground. Since we can really work only as small as the quantum scale, or in this case- dropletts, if we hit one droplett with another to see where it is, it will form a rain drop. Doing this may seem mysterious, but it really only transfers its water (or some type of energy, in the case of wave functions). Because of this act of transferrance, it may look as though the act of viewing it destroys the peculiar way it acts, when it really just manipulates the experiment.

    What I'm saying is that there may be some sort of pull on atoms that change the way they react to certain situations, such as going thru either a left or right opening. Considering the history of science, it's entirely possible that there's something even smaller that's right under our noses that could be overlooked.

    Scientifically speaking, which would make more sense- The act of viewing something on a small scale somehow magically causes strange effects on the experiment, or that the manner in which we try to view the experiment contaminates it. Afterall, it is energy being thrown around in a very delicate situation.

    To summarize, perhaps some force acts upon particles when attempting to view them, such as gravity, or maybe even some unknown and weaker force than gravity that has yet to be discovered. It's a bit silly to think that a method of prediction is the actual answer to the problem, isn't it?

    Thanks,
    Dark Fox
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 13, 2006 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Unfortunately, you seem to have a very poor grasp of quantum mechanics, its methodology, and its conclusions. Ordinarily, this would not be a problem, but it sounds more like you're presenting a personal theory than asking for any help in actually understanding quantum mechanics.

    This post is therefore against the guidelines which you agreed to presumably moments ago. Perhaps you should take the time to read the guidelines before posting again.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

    Thread closed.

    - Warren
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Strangle the cat
  1. Schrödinger's cat (Replies: 21)

  2. Schrödinger's cat (Replies: 18)

  3. Schrodinger cat (Replies: 2)

Loading...