What makes schrodinger cat quantum?

I see, double slit experiment for one particle at a time shows interference for a probability wavelet. I understand this experiment quiet well but still I wish for something simpler.

One last question, I am always wondering, what if I do a double slit interference in a cloud chamber, will we get different result? But I could also argue that doing double slit interference in non vacuum will decohere the wavelet too?

Probability wave interference is the classic way of explaining the double slit experiment, but I don't think it's necessary. Worse still, probability waves are, in all likelihood, nothing more than a fantasy made up by some physicists. (What is it "made of"?--not energy, and certainly not matter--it creates more problems and questions than it solves). Certainly nobody has ever seen one. They're a construct some physicists have made to provide a conceptual framework of what is happening.

The way I see it, the seemingly unusual results of the double slit experiment are a consequence of the universe having a matter perspective, as well as an energy perspective, which are both valid. This is why we find what we call the particle/wave duality of light. (Such a duality exists for more than just light, however.)

We're used to seeing the experiment from the matter perspective. We're firing photons (from the matter perspective) and they have a probabilistic chance of moving through one slit or the other. We look at it and wonder how this photon can interfere with it very self as though it went through both slits.

But look at it from the photon's perspective. For the frame of reference of a photon time does not exist. In other words, the elapsed time from when it is emitted to when it is absorbed is zero *from the photon's perspective* (an equally valid perspective as ours, but different). This also must mean that the distance between emission and absorption must also be zero *from the photon's perspective*. Therefore all paths from the emitter to the screen are zero, which is like saying the screen at all points is "in contact" with the emitter, *FTPP*. But because of the barrier and the slits, not all of these paths are equally likely. The size, shape, and location of the slits determine areas which have a much greater chance of being "hit." (A probability, but not a "probability wave".

So in effect, the photon really does pass through both slits and interferes with itself, but this spatial relation of the slits as being separate from each other, and of the photon interfering with itself--all this only happens from the matter perspective (which is, as I said before, equally valid--and in this case, much more in keeping with our ordinary perceptions).

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts anyone might have about this interpretation.

--Mike from Shreveport
 
111
4
... probability waves are, in all likelihood, nothing more than a fantasy made up by some physicists... They're a construct some physicists have made to provide a conceptual framework of what is happening.

The way I see it, the seemingly unusual results of the double slit experiment are a consequence of the universe having a matter perspective, as well as an energy perspective, which are both valid...

We're used to seeing the experiment from the matter perspective...

So in effect, the photon really does pass through both slits and interferes with itself...

--Mike from Shreveport
I, also, dislike the use of the term probability wave. That is why I see the wave nature of QM as suggesting wave packets representing an oscillator of a yet to be determined nature - see my post #93. But I view the oscillations as real. I have move difficulty visualising the matter angle. I see the double slit experiment when considered from the matter perspective as showing point particles & from the energy perspective as showing wave interference. However, at this scale we're not seeing small specks of matter. So my conjecture was that the particles were an conceptual construct to explain the experimental results.
 
I, also, dislike the use of the term probability wave. That is why I see the wave nature of QM as suggesting wave packets representing an oscillator of a yet to be determined nature - see my post #93. But I view the oscillations as real. I have move difficulty visualising the matter angle. I see the double slit experiment when considered from the matter perspective as showing point particles & from the energy perspective as showing wave interference. However, at this scale we're not seeing small specks of matter. So my conjecture was that the particles were an conceptual construct to explain the experimental results.
I agree that the oscillations ARE real, from our perspective. For the photon there is no time for an oscillation to occur. (Aha!) But we see what we see, and depend on it. The oscillation may be a product of a tiny spatial dimension or some or spatial or dimensional aspect of reality that we don't fully understand. And probably our understanding of the photon as this tiny particle is flawed, too. It may be much more spread out.

I've often wondered whether light is fundamentally quantum in nature, or if it only appears that way because all of its interactions with matter must be in quantum amounts in order to occur. This may seem like a difference that makes no difference, but it actually might explain some real phenomena.
 

RUTA

Science Advisor
Insights Author
1,005
168
One last question, I am always wondering, what if I do a double slit interference in a cloud chamber, will we get different result?
You won't get an interference pattern because the wave function collapses to a narrow beam after the first click (bubble), so that subsequent clicks fall in a nice line ("particle trajectory"). Sorry, I forget the classic paper that describes this change in psi after the first bubble chamber event. It's rather old, 1930ish as I recall.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top