- #1

courtney1111

- 4

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter courtney1111
- Start date

- #1

courtney1111

- 4

- 0

- #2

Kevin_Axion

- 912

- 2

- #3

tom.stoer

Science Advisor

- 5,778

- 170

If one looks at quantum field theory one could say that a particle is something that carries a certain amount of momentum and energy, has a well defined invariant mass m² = E² - p² and transformes therefore in a proper way under Lorentz transformations. If this is sufficient, than such a "particle" does always exist, even w/o looking at it. But the concept is rather abstract and stricly speaking one is still not able to describe such a particle accureately by modern physics - only approximations are known.

If a "particle" is something that is localized then I would say that a quantum object (that may exists always in the above mentioned sense) is revealed as a particle only via a local (in space and time) interaction.In that sense a particle does exist only when looking at.

- #4

The_Duck

- 1,006

- 107

You should read about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment" [Broken], which classic demonstration of the effect of observation in quantum mechanics. I thought for a while about how to explain this phenomenon of observing a particle affecting its behavior, but I personally don't know a good way to talk about that outside of the math. I suppose that just means my understanding is not as good as it should be.

Such statements are sort of justified by a possible method of calculating in quantum mechanics that goes something like this: Say I have a particle that I have measured to be at position A, which is somewhere. I want to predict where is will be five seconds from now. In fact, I can't predict this, according to the math. I can predict the /probability/ that I will find it at a given location. How do I find the probability that it will be at some given position B? Well, I draw /all possible paths/ the particle could take from A to B. For each path I calculate a number. Then I add up all the numbers to get the probability of finding the particle at B five seconds from now. Of course, I could do the same thing to find the probability of the particle ending up at any other position.

Since we can think about the particle as travelling along all possible paths, in some sense the particle is doing "whatever it pleases" during the intermediate period. Why then is the universe not total chaos? Well, the probabilities to end up at various points are more or less what you'd expect. If I have an electron in my lab moving left at one meter per second, the math tells me I'm unlikely to find it halfway around the world five seconds from now. I'll almost certainly find it five meters to the left of where it was (well, except gravity will pull it down and stuff).

the idea that when particles are not being observed they either no longer exist or just do as they please.

Such statements are sort of justified by a possible method of calculating in quantum mechanics that goes something like this: Say I have a particle that I have measured to be at position A, which is somewhere. I want to predict where is will be five seconds from now. In fact, I can't predict this, according to the math. I can predict the /probability/ that I will find it at a given location. How do I find the probability that it will be at some given position B? Well, I draw /all possible paths/ the particle could take from A to B. For each path I calculate a number. Then I add up all the numbers to get the probability of finding the particle at B five seconds from now. Of course, I could do the same thing to find the probability of the particle ending up at any other position.

Since we can think about the particle as travelling along all possible paths, in some sense the particle is doing "whatever it pleases" during the intermediate period. Why then is the universe not total chaos? Well, the probabilities to end up at various points are more or less what you'd expect. If I have an electron in my lab moving left at one meter per second, the math tells me I'm unlikely to find it halfway around the world five seconds from now. I'll almost certainly find it five meters to the left of where it was (well, except gravity will pull it down and stuff).

Last edited by a moderator:

- #5

courtney1111

- 4

- 0

- #6

Pythagorean

Gold Member

- 4,356

- 287

- #7

tom.stoer

Science Advisor

- 5,778

- 170

- #8

lugita15

- 1,554

- 15

A good place to start is http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/index.html" of quantum mechanics. Watch Lecture 6.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #9

Maui

- 774

- 2

Yes, but you have to

Last edited:

Share:

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 254

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 717

- Replies
- 119

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 716

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 408

- Replies
- 27

- Views
- 744

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 513

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 277

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 494

- Last Post

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 324