 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, so particles aren't waves.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/born-rules-quantum-mechanics-survives-triple-slit-test.ars
(They don't seem to do a very good job of particles either, for that matter.)
Now tell me again we know what happened before the big bang?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> writes:
> OK, so particles aren't waves.
>
>
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/born-rules-quantum-mechanics-survives-triple-slit-test.ars
>
> (They don't seem to do a very good job of particles either, for that matter.)
Well, because they're neither.
As I said many threads ago, I never liked the whole particle + wave
duality. What they are acts neither like a macro particle, nor as a
mathematical particle, nor as a macro wave. It's just in a category of
its own.
Electrons aren't waves. They aren't simple particles either. Why can't
they just teach it that way?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> Electrons aren't waves. They aren't simple particles either. Why can't
> they just teach it that way?
It would be nice to know what they are, not only what the aren't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/born-rules-quantum-mechanics-survives-triple-slit-test.ars
"So, the authors built a triple-slit system, set up so that they could
open and close each of the slits. One of the three ended up not
opening fully, which actually created a small source of error in the
experiments."
I'm wondering: Then why didn't they fix the defective slit and start
over?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 24/07/2010 07:57, Warp nous fit lire :
> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
>> Electrons aren't waves. They aren't simple particles either. Why can't
>> they just teach it that way?
>
> It would be nice to know what they are, not only what the aren't.
>
They are electrons. Now, you wanted a seizable simile... sorry, no such
thing at your scale.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Le 24/07/2010 07:57, Warp nous fit lire :
> > Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> >> Electrons aren't waves. They aren't simple particles either. Why can't
> >> they just teach it that way?
> >
> > It would be nice to know what they are, not only what the aren't.
> >
> They are electrons. Now, you wanted a seizable simile... sorry, no such
> thing at your scale.
You can't use the word being defined in its definition. That's a
circular definition.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> Le 24/07/2010 07:57, Warp nous fit lire :
>>> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
>>>> Electrons aren't waves. They aren't simple particles either. Why can't
>>>> they just teach it that way?
>>> It would be nice to know what they are, not only what the aren't.
>>>
>> They are electrons. Now, you wanted a seizable simile... sorry, no such
>> thing at your scale.
>
> You can't use the word being defined in its definition. That's a
> circular definition.
Well, they're electrons. QM describes how they behave. They don't behave
like anything else. They are (insert all of QM theory here).
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I'm wondering: Then why didn't they fix the defective slit and start
> over?
If I had to guess, I'd say it's because it wasn't until they analyzed the
results that they realized the slit was broken, at which point they didn't
have time to repeat the experiment before the paper publishing deadline.
Me, I'm more surprised that nobody before this had ever *actually* tried it
with three slits.
I also discover I no longer understand how QM works nearly as much as I
thought I did. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Well, they're electrons. QM describes how they behave. They don't behave
> like anything else.
Given that electrons are fermions and that electrons are not the only
fermions, I wouldn't say that's true.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Well, they're electrons. QM describes how they behave. They don't behave
>> like anything else.
>
> Given that electrons are fermions and that electrons are not the only
> fermions, I wouldn't say that's true.
I think you know what I'm saying. They don't behave like anything
non-quantum. The difference between electrons and other fermions is the
numbers you plug into the same equation.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
