[ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty.
BillK
pharos at gmail.com
Sat Dec 4 18:53:51 UTC 2010
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:59 PM, spike wrote:
> Then I witnessed the double slit experiment. I did the equations every
> which way I could imagine. They showed that photons are quantized, like
> tiny particles with energy equal to h*nu, with momentum equal to h*nu/c.
> Those equations are my trusted friends, they never lied to me, never let me
> down ever, a scintillation detector proves it true, and time is a one way
> street in my experience. Then we see how the photons are hitting the double
> slits one at a time, calculate it a hundred times, they are, no question.
> But somehow each individual photon is either splitting in two and
> interfering with itself, or its *spacial* other self, or it is somehow
> remembering what the previous photon did, and leaving messages for the next
> one, as if it is like a particle waving back and forth in time, interfering
> or with its temporal other self. Or some damn thing. Every standard
> explanation just sounds so outlandish, so very wrong, but it then the theory
> actually works perfectly. How annoying! Quantum mechanical theory makes
> accurate predictions to eight places, works waaaay better than the models we
> mechanical engineering types use every day and trust explicitly, even though
> they are lucky to predict within plus or minus thirty percent.
>
> It's been 30 years now since my mind was first boggled by that astonishing
> experiment, but today I am NO CLOSER to any reasonable-sounding explanation
> for quantum mechanics.
>
>
This article attempts a 'simple' explanation for the double slit experiment.
<http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/quantum.html>
Quote:
when we don't know which slit the photons are going through, we get a
wave interference pattern. When we do know which slit each photon
traveled through, no interference pattern.!
the Copenhagen Interpretation:
So how does that theory apply to our experiment? First let's look at
the original double slit experiment. You shoot out a photon. The Y
wave travels from the photon emitter, through both slits, and back to
the wall, creating a pattern just like light would, except it's a
pattern of probability instead of light. At the back wall (with its
photo-sensitive surface) the photon is measured, which collapses the
wave function: the photon has to choose where to hit. Of course, lots
of photons choose high-probability areas, only a few choose
low-probability areas, and none of them choose zero-probability areas.
That's why we see the interference pattern.
But when we put measuring devices in the slits, we collapse the
wavefunction much earlier. We force the photon to choose which slit to
go through: one probability becomes "definitely yes" and the other
becomes "definitely no" in that instant. Thereafter, there is only one
beam, and hence no interference and no interference pattern.
The photon really, genuinely, and importantly, does not have a
specific location until we measure one. The cat really isn't alive or
dead.
BillK
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list