Post by: pittsburghjoe on 14/06/2019 01:01:25
Post by: Kryptid on 14/06/2019 03:40:11
If a matter wave makes it through, it will mean mass isn't there during the wave
How do you figure? Mass doesn't have a size.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 14/06/2019 03:42:30
Post by: Kryptid on 14/06/2019 03:44:25
The structure / mass / matter wouldn't have fit through the slits if it was observed.
"Structure", "mass" and "matter" are not synonyms. Mass doesn't have a size, so the idea that it can't "fit" somewhere doesn't make sense.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 14/06/2019 03:51:16
Post by: chiralSPO on 14/06/2019 03:53:18
...but there is a somewhat nifty way to see that mass is important for calculating tunneling barriers for particles (which depends on the wave function treatment of the particles):
We can measure the rates of chemical reactions, and see how much they change when hydrogen atoms are switched for deuterium (chemically identical isotope, but with twice the mass). This is called the kinetic isotope effect (or KIE). Sometimes a hydrogen atom has to tunnel from one place to another for the reaction to occur, and sometimes (especially when the reaction is very cold) this is the rate determining step, which means that we can directly measure how long (on average) it takes for protons to tunnel from x to y, and compare with hoe long it takes deuterons to tunnel from x to y. When this tunneling is the rate determining step, the KIE is very large, sometimes even slowing down by a factor of 100 when doubling the mass of the tunneling particle. This means that mass is an important property of a quantum object, even when considering it as a wave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect#Tunneling
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 14/06/2019 03:57:50
Post by: chiralSPO on 14/06/2019 04:02:36
rather, matter can be modeled as waves, not just as particles
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 14/06/2019 04:11:10
Post by: Colin2B on 14/06/2019 08:46:06
oh, so, instead of considering what I'm saying ..you're gonna go with a buckyball physically taking the form of a wave.That’s not what @chiralSPO said. He said it could be modelled as a wave.
Post by: chiralSPO on 14/06/2019 14:56:21
But it is very convenient to think about them as such in certain situations.
I have a kit sitting on my desk in front of me now, which allows me to build models of molecules with balls and sticks. This is very easy to visualize, and holding the models in my hands allows my physical-spatial intuition to make very useful predictions. But let's be honest: these balls and sticks are no more like molecules than this → ;D ← is a face.
Unfortunately for our simple minds, simplistic models like balls and sticks, fall short quite often when considering systems at this scale. Waves, springs, and pendulums (pendula?) are the next step up, and allow us to tackle dynamic and indeterminate systems. But again, a system of oscillating springs is not more like a molecule than this ↓
[ Invalid Attachment ]
↑ is a face.
Post by: chiralSPO on 14/06/2019 15:00:34
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2019 18:12:09
Presumably the same way they did last time.
"In 1999, the double-slit experiment was successfully performed with buckyball molecules "
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 14/06/2019 23:24:13
Yes, there are larger objects ..so that means we can do the test with larger slits.
"It could be modeled as a wave" ...hmm, you guys are so close to admitting it.
Post by: chiralSPO on 15/06/2019 01:55:48
...hmm, you guys are so close to admitting it."admitting it" makes it sound as if you believe that "we" know something and are actively trying to prevent that knowledge from spreading...
Post by: Kryptid on 15/06/2019 06:11:11
They are synonyms for the purpose of this test.
Not if they lead you to the false conclusion that mass has a size. If you think it does have a size, then what size do you claim that mass is?
If something our size didn't have mass, you wouldn't be able to see it.
Can you even give an example of something that exists that doesn't have mass/energy? Even space-time contains mass/energy in the form of vacuum fluctuations.
Post by: geordief on 15/06/2019 09:50:17
Can you even give an example of something that exists that doesn't have mass/energy? Even space-time contains mass/energy in the form of vacuum fluctuations.Is that just because (or connected to the fact that) any measurement of mass/energy is relative to a reference frame and all reference frames' location are uncertain in the real world?
Post by: jeffreyH on 15/06/2019 10:17:14
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/06/2019 11:10:52
. I want slits smaller than the objectPretty much by definition of the size of an object, that means that the object won't go through the slits.
So nothing will get through.
Why are you suggesting doing a pointless experiment like that?
Post by: evan_au on 15/06/2019 11:19:39
Quote from: pittsburghjoe
I want slits smaller than the objectSince the object can be described by a quantum wavefunction, the size of the object (and the size of the slits) is a fuzzy concept.
I expect that there is a small but finite chance that the object will be found on the other side of the slit.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/06/2019 11:37:42
If they get through then they must have been "smaller" than the slits.
So you haven't done the experiment "as described" with slits smaller than the buckyballs.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 15/06/2019 15:34:14
Post by: chiralSPO on 15/06/2019 18:58:48
Interference has to do with how waves move AROUND barriers (or how waves from multiple sources interact).
Tunneling has to do with how waves behave at edges (and that they don't just stop). A buckyball (being composed of sixty nuclei and hundreds of electrons) is highly unlikely to tunnel through any barrier. However, single elementary particles can tunnel over vast distances (on a molecular scale) through barriers or empty space.
~~~
There is also the issue that we have to consider what the actual structure of the slits is. Are they gaps within a material barrier that is made of atoms? If so: What kinds of atoms, and how are the connected? How thick is the barrier, and what is the shape of the slits (again remembering that if the edge is made of atoms, it must be "fuzzy" too). If not: what is it made of???
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 15/06/2019 19:03:27
Post by: chiralSPO on 15/06/2019 20:02:55
I don't care what you call the experiment as long as you admit to no physicality in matter waves.
I will admit no such thing.
I will admit that:
A) buckyballs, or electrons, or whatever, are neither particles nor waves...
B) ...but they exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties.
C) And whatever they "actually are," they are physical entities, with properties we call mass, charge, momentum, etc.
D) wave functions are mathematical equations that describe the behavior of these particles—wave functions are not actual physical entities.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 15/06/2019 20:06:17
okay, so how do we get a scientist to do this test and shut you down?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/06/2019 20:29:35
::rolls eyes::What would be different about doing the test today or doing it 20 years ago?
okay, so how do we get a scientist to do this test and shut you down?
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 15/06/2019 20:32:16
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/06/2019 20:58:18
I invite you to consider the practicality of making such a grating.
All it needs to be is a regular array of things that are closer together than the size of a buckyball.
I think that experiment has been done- often.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 15/06/2019 21:00:18
Post by: chiralSPO on 15/06/2019 21:16:59
If so, you are blind to the real world.
Then you are welcome to celebrate your clarity elsewhere and leave us to wallow in our ignorance.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/06/2019 21:24:56
If so, you are blind to the real world.There is none so blind as he who will not see.
And you don't see that , for example, the stainless steel vacuum chamber in which they do these sorts of experiments is a grating with a very small spacing.
It has crystals of metals that are regularly spaced ions with gaps between them.
But I see you were far too busy thinking you were right to actually consider what I had said.
Now, what was that about being blinded to the real world?
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 15/06/2019 21:37:01
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/06/2019 21:39:24
It's pretty pathetic when a guy, not even in your field, has to point this out.Well, I don't know what your field is, but it's plainly not QM.
Mine is,, and I guess that's why I had to point it out to you.
The experiment has been done and the result is what you expect.
Big things seldom go through small holes.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 15/06/2019 21:42:48
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/06/2019 22:03:59
A buckyball (being composed of sixty nuclei and hundreds of electrons) is highly unlikely to tunnel through any barrier.That's nice, because you have heard it at least twice
highly unlikely to tunnel through any barrier
How likely depends on the barrier, the particle etc.
But the point remains, the experiment has been done- in effect, countless times.
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2019 01:14:47
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 16/06/2019 01:32:09
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2019 01:34:09
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 16/06/2019 01:46:39
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2019 02:04:10
Post by: alancalverd on 16/06/2019 08:57:46
Alas, this obvious and profound observation seems not to have reached the elementary school syllabus yet, though it is plain that the regular contributors here understand it. What baffles me is why those who don't, frequently accuse us of sharing their delusions.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2019 09:33:39
You and I both know there is a certain number of atoms always anchored to spacetime.Nobody knows that.
You imagine it and we listen fairly politely (then we go away and laugh behind your back).
In order to provide us with more comedy material, perhaps you would like to tell us what evidence you have for this... unorthodox... opinion?
Post by: geordief on 16/06/2019 10:36:26
Eddington pointed out about 100 years ago that if a student of physics fell through an intact floor and rematerialised in the room below, he would not consider it a miracle but merely one of the less probable solutions to a multivariable equation.Is there a (exponentially remote) chance that the student rematerializes slightly lacking in physical integrity ?
Alas, this obvious and profound observation seems not to have reached the elementary school syllabus yet, though it is plain that the regular contributors here understand it. What baffles me is why those who don't, frequently accuse us of sharing their delusions.
Say ,for example with a finger slightly longer?
Are there some scenarios that might be impossible no matter how remotely possible?
Edit : is it a reasonable observation that any body, alive or inanimate , goes through spacetime "shedding" countless parts of itself from one moment to the next as "quantum components" disappear for their own quantum reasons leaving the persisting macro body to sail on in its new overall state regardless of what is happening to that body at the macro level?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/06/2019 12:02:44
Post by: geordief on 16/06/2019 12:10:11
Anyone who remembers "The Fly" will recall the problems of reassembling atoms in their original order. Indeed the fact that a double slit transfer redistributes stuff into a transform of the slit convoluted with the incident beam, suggests that the probability of recombination in a recpognisable order is even less than Eddington implied. But that classic film ignored the fundamental conservation of matter - the fly could not be more massive than the original, nor could Bart Simpson, in the famous spoof remake, get any smaller. So no long finger, unless some orther bit is sacrificed..
Perhaps just musing ,but is there a definition of "order" in the way you have just used it that applies to quantum mechanics in a way that is different (or the same as) to the way it is used in classical mechanics?
I imagine there might be spatial order and temporal order -or is there a fusion between the two?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/06/2019 15:10:46
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 16/06/2019 17:28:52
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2019 17:47:29
Observation is a property of spacetime. Stuff on our scale has never turned into a matter wave. There is a divide between spacetime and qm waves, apparently it's the number of atoms involved.Is that, by any chance, an attempt at proof by loud assertion?
Or maybe you have... you know.. maybe... some evidence?
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 16/06/2019 18:02:00
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2019 18:21:55
If matter waves can pass a slit smaller than the object they represent ..they are not physical they are waves of variables/information. The uncertainty principle is uncertain(fuzzy) because the objects has only been granted partial spacetime. Observation/Spacetime is what makes matter waves swap to physical objects. QM waves don't have time, gravity, or 3D. If QM waves are information the divide is how much information an object contains.Pardon?
"If matter waves can pass a slit smaller than the object they represent ."...
then sieves don't work.
But, they do.
Post by: Colin2B on 16/06/2019 18:39:05
Observation/Spacetime is what makes matter waves swap to physical objects. QM waves don't have time, gravity, or 3D. If QM waves are information the divide is how much information an object contains.I did ask you to complywith our request not to post new theory in main physics section.
On this occasion we will move your thread, we probably wont be a generous next time.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 17/06/2019 00:48:27
Atoms bouncing off each other collapses their waves."If matter waves can pass a slit smaller than the object they represent ."...
then sieves don't work.
But, they do.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2019 10:50:09
Imagine a hydrogen atom. Its effective radius is pretty much determined by Heisenberg. Now imagine a huge ball of frozen hydrogen. The indeterminacy of its radius is still that of one atom at the surface, because all the other particles' "fuzz balls" are random and thus sum to the classical volume of the object.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 17/06/2019 13:03:14
Post by: Colin2B on 17/06/2019 14:18:51
The point of this thread is for objects larger than a single atom that can still swap to matter waves.They don’t swap. You are still trying to use your misunderstanding of behaviour models.
They don’t behave the way you think they do.
Atoms bouncing off each other collapses their waves.Results will differ.
Be specific. Which atoms, which specific wave equations, what conditions are you assuming for the collisions.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2019 14:59:47
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/06/2019 19:12:31
Atoms bouncing off each other collapses their waves.That doesn't even parse.
There's something you need to understand.
It has already been pointed out, but you have missed it.
Imagine making a grating with a gap between the "wires" that's a little bit smaller than the molecules you are using.
Classically, no particles will get through it.
QM and the uncertainty principle means that a few will. They will quantum tunnel through.
Here's the bit you don't understand.
If you take the grating and hammer it until the wires are squashed flat and there are no gaps so it becomes a metal foil then repeat the experiment...
More atoms will get through the foil even though it no longer has gaps in it. (In some circumstances)
Do you understand that?
The probability of tunneling is related to the thickness of the barrier.
Hammering it flat makes it thinner and so it's more likely that atoms will tunnel through.
Obviously, with the grating destroyed, there's no diffraction pattern.
And the (smaller number of) atoms that went through the grating before you hammered it flat would also show no clear diffraction pattern because, at that level, the atoms are not going through the gaps.
It's the same , classically, with light
You know the equation
d sin θ = λ
Where lambda is the wavelength and d is the spacing
you can rewrite that as
sin θ = λ /d
Well, if you make d smaller than lambda then you are trying to find an angle where sin theta is more than 1, but that's impossible.
Diffraction doesn't work if the wavelength is bigger than the grating's spacing.
And, returning to QM, a particle can't be "smaller" than the associated wavelength.
So, you can't sensibly calculate a diffraction pattern for the the experiment you have proposed.
So there's no way to say whether the particles would follow it or not.
And, as has been pointed out before, you also can't measure it because, in practice big things don't go through small holes.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 17/06/2019 19:26:25
Post by: chiralSPO on 17/06/2019 20:25:53
Why can't you grasp that tunneling is even more evidence that matter waves are not physical?And why can't you grasp that tunneling (and uncertainty, and wave-particle duality, and zero point energy, and so on) are only indications that our macroscopic scale experience has little use on the molecular scale? It's not that the atoms and molecules are somehow non-physical (whatever that means), it's that the physics is different from what you think it should be!
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/06/2019 20:34:10
Why can't you grasp that tunneling is even more evidence that matter waves are not physical?What do you think "non physical" means?
In any event, if I want to calculate rates of tunneling, I solve the equations for the matter waves.
They may not be "physical" - whatever that means, but tunnelling is evidence that matter waves work as a model.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 17/06/2019 20:40:35
I'm not trying to say any existing models are wrong. Only what they claim matter waves to be.
If you admit to them not being physical, it opens up my bigger theory of spacetime being separate from QM.
Post by: chiralSPO on 17/06/2019 20:56:23
If you admit to them not being physical, it opens up my bigger theory of spacetime being separate from QM.
But QM isn't entirely separate from spacetime, whether viewed as particles or waves. MOST of it is inextricably linked.
Hints:
wavelength
distance between slits
decay time
etc.
As I have said previously, there ARE some aspects of QM that are not tied to spacetime, like spin, which instead should be thought of in "spin space"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/06/2019 20:57:31
not being physical,You keep failing to explain what you think that means.
Is that because you can't?
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 17/06/2019 21:02:44
Physical: structure, 3D, more than just information ..real to us.
Post by: chiralSPO on 17/06/2019 21:09:23
Screen Shot 2019-06-17 at 4.06.15 PM.png (127.11 kB . 990x690 - viewed 6686 times)Don't worry, it is possible to scale back down (and to the right side), but it's a very disconcerting climb...
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 17/06/2019 21:16:08
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/06/2019 21:37:11
I should have wrote QM waves are separate from spacetime. Observation/Spacetime grants them partial physicality.Why?
Were you entering a "bad poetry" contest?
not being physical,You keep failing to explain what you think that means.
Is that because you can't?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2019 21:37:34
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/06/2019 21:38:57
You don't get that this discovery never would have happened if I went to the same schooling as you.We get it...
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/06/2019 21:39:50
I encounter it every day in Health and Safety Executive inspectors who do not read their own company handbook (ignorance) and then invent new "laws" (arrogance) in order to extract fees from their victims.So, when you appealed, how did that go?
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/06/2019 22:12:01
Atoms bouncing off each other collapses their waves.That doesn't even parse.
There's something you need to understand.
It has already been pointed out, but you have missed it.
Imagine making a grating with a gap between the "wires" that's a little bit smaller than the molecules you are using.
Classically, no particles will get through it.
QM and the uncertainty principle means that a few will. They will quantum tunnel through.
Here's the bit you don't understand.
If you take the grating and hammer it until the wires are squashed flat and there are no gaps so it becomes a metal foil then repeat the experiment...
More atoms will get through the foil even though it no longer has gaps in it. (In some circumstances)
Do you understand that?
The probability of tunneling is related to the thickness of the barrier.
Hammering it flat makes it thinner and so it's more likely that atoms will tunnel through.
Obviously, with the grating destroyed, there's no diffraction pattern.
And the (smaller number of) atoms that went through the grating before you hammered it flat would also show no clear diffraction pattern because, at that level, the atoms are not going through the gaps.
It's the same , classically, with light
You know the equation
d sin θ = λ
Where lambda is the wavelength and d is the spacing
you can rewrite that as
sin θ = λ /d
Well, if you make d smaller than lambda then you are trying to find an angle where sin theta is more than 1, but that's impossible.
Diffraction doesn't work if the wavelength is bigger than the grating's spacing.
And, returning to QM, a particle can't be "smaller" than the associated wavelength.
So, you can't sensibly calculate a diffraction pattern for the the experiment you have proposed.
So there's no way to say whether the particles would follow it or not.
And, as has been pointed out before, you also can't measure it because, in practice big things don't go through small holes.
This is a real gem of a post. Joe, really, you need to read this thread through and absorb. Do you realise how much the tuition would be for this stuff? And you are getting it for free. Step away from the house bricks mate.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 19/06/2019 15:55:18
If you admit to them not being physical, it opens up my bigger theory of spacetime being separate from QM.
But QM isn't entirely separate from spacetime, whether viewed as particles or waves. MOST of it is inextricably linked.
Hints:
wavelength
distance between slits
decay time
etc.
As I have said previously, there ARE some aspects of QM that are not tied to spacetime, like spin, which instead should be thought of in "spin space"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html
all variables you list can propagate within matter waves
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/06/2019 16:47:16
Precisely! You claimed that spacetime somehow doesn't apply to matter waves. I pointed out that these waves have properties that are inextricably linked to both space and time. Therefore.... these waves must exist in spacetime!If you admit to them not being physical, it opens up my bigger theory of spacetime being separate from QM.
But QM isn't entirely separate from spacetime, whether viewed as particles or waves. MOST of it is inextricably linked.
Hints:
wavelength
distance between slits
decay time
etc.
As I have said previously, there ARE some aspects of QM that are not tied to spacetime, like spin, which instead should be thought of in "spin space"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html
all variables you list can propagate within matter waves
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 19/06/2019 16:51:21
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2019 17:52:51
What do you think "non physical" means?
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 19/06/2019 17:55:27
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2019 18:08:25
for lack of a better term: ghostsSo, not something that should be on a science forum then?
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 19/06/2019 18:11:07
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2019 18:34:06
If you describe a matter wave better than me you win a prize.What would I get if I could describe it worse?
I ask because it seems more like an interesting challenge?
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 19/06/2019 18:42:16
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2019 18:52:07
It must be frustrating for you not to be able to prove this wrong.I can't prove that a ghost didn't do it.
That's not going to trouble me much, is it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2019 18:52:41
They don't know where Dark Energy came from, it makes sense for it to have been here all along.Nobody is pretending that it is new.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 19/06/2019 18:55:33
Okay, wait, everyone is already cool with something being here before the singularity?
..maybe "Dark Energy" is a better description than "Ghost"
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 19/06/2019 19:08:35
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2019 19:09:10
Holy Sh!t, is that what QM waves are? Dark Energy?No.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 19/06/2019 20:57:40
Dark Energy = QM Energy Waves
Dark Matter = QM Matter Waves
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2019 21:21:00
A compelling argument as always.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Dark Energy = QM Energy Waves
Dark Matter = QM Matter Waves
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 19/06/2019 21:23:04
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 20/06/2019 01:29:00
I would be worried if we find out earth is going to drift into a cloud of Dark Matter. What if our atmosphere is enough to decohere it? Would we suddenly have a metric ton worth of matter burning up in our atmosphere?
Does Dark Energy get stronger the longer it's unobserved?
Post by: Colin2B on 20/06/2019 08:10:30
......Pointing a telescope directly at it doesn't seem to collapse its waveform at all. Does that imply a distance or clarity (zoom) limitation to getting spacetime involved?I don’t understand your reasoning. Is it associated with the use of ‘observed’ in the following?
Does Dark Energy get stronger the longer it's unobserved?Are you misunderstanding the use of observed in QM? It doesn’t mean watched.
The only way we can ‘see’ dark matter is if it gives off radiation or absorbs radiation and it doesn’t seem to do either.
We can infer it’s pesence if it has an effect on nearby mass eg stars.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 20/06/2019 12:59:43
Post by: Colin2B on 20/06/2019 14:11:26
If Dark Energy and Dark Matter are in a wave state, it means it is either special and will never change state or we just aren't close enough to measure it accurately ..trigger the swap from wave to physical.We aren’t trying to, or doing anything, to make it change state.
As has been said before, waves are physical.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 20/06/2019 14:20:34
Post by: chiralSPO on 20/06/2019 14:58:43
..maybe "Dark Energy" is a better description than "Ghost"
Holy Sh!t, is that what QM waves are? Dark Energy?
A compelling argument as always.
Dark Energy = QM Energy Waves
Dark Matter = QM Matter Waves
I showed you why I came to this conclusion. You people are impossible.
"I don't understand X.
Scientists don't understand Y.
OMG X must be the same as Y!"
Not compelling in the least. Especially since scientists understand X, and can prove (in many different ways) that X and Y are not the same.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 20/06/2019 15:26:47
No one has convinced me that QM waves are physical/visible. You just hate new ideas from lowly code writers.
Post by: Colin2B on 20/06/2019 18:22:41
No one has convinced me that QM waves are physical/visible.Light is visible and is a QM wave.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 20/06/2019 18:38:25
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2019 19:03:39
I showed you why I came to this conclusion.Where?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2019 19:05:21
What if this becomes the goto thread for discovering what "Dark" is?It can't happen.
Especially since scientists understand X, and can prove (in many different ways) that X and Y are not the same.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 20/06/2019 19:13:28
If it's accepted that Dark Energy was here before the big bang ..then so did waves.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2019 19:40:09
If it's accepted that Dark Energy was here before the big bangIt isn't.
f matter waves can pass a slit smaller than the object they representI'm not aware of anyone saying they can.
The uncertainty principle is uncertain(fuzzy) because the objects has only been granted partial spacetime.That just doesn't make any sense.
QM waves don't have time or 3DYou can transform a wave function to give a real property of the object it represents- the best known transform is that multiplication of psi by its complex conjugate gives a probability distribution.
Since those real properties- like probability distribution- are 3D objects, it figured that the wave is also 3D.
The problem here is that you haven't a godforsaken clue what you are talking about.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 20/06/2019 19:52:14
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2019 20:18:04
waves hold the variables. Whatever, when Dark stuff comes up as waves, check back here.OK, should we close the thread until then?
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 20/06/2019 22:47:15
Dark Matter will be my undeniable proof that QM waves are invisible, not physical. We have energy waves literally everywhere and we don't see them in wave format. Why would we be able to see matter waves? You act like you would get a 3D object if you could grab a matter wave without collapsing it. You're the one with an active imagination. That wave holds the information for the object, I don't get how you can call a ghost (dark matter) physical.
The information in the wave is surely the same information addressed in the Information Paradox.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/06/2019 18:51:40
Are you claiming tunneling doesn't happen?No.
I'm saying that, since tunnelling doesn't need "slits", it's irrelevant.
It would help if you actually read (and understood) what people have already said.
Atoms bouncing off each other collapses their waves.That doesn't even parse.
There's something you need to understand.
It has already been pointed out, but you have missed it.
Imagine making a grating with a gap between the "wires" that's a little bit smaller than the molecules you are using.
Classically, no particles will get through it.
QM and the uncertainty principle means that a few will. They will quantum tunnel through.
Here's the bit you don't understand.
If you take the grating and hammer it until the wires are squashed flat and there are no gaps so it becomes a metal foil then repeat the experiment...
More atoms will get through the foil even though it no longer has gaps in it. (In some circumstances)
Do you understand that?
The probability of tunneling is related to the thickness of the barrier.
Hammering it flat makes it thinner and so it's more likely that atoms will tunnel through.
Obviously, with the grating destroyed, there's no diffraction pattern.
And the (smaller number of) atoms that went through the grating before you hammered it flat would also show no clear diffraction pattern because, at that level, the atoms are not going through the gaps.
It's the same , classically, with light
You know the equation
d sin θ = λ
Where lambda is the wavelength and d is the spacing
you can rewrite that as
sin θ = λ /d
Well, if you make d smaller than lambda then you are trying to find an angle where sin theta is more than 1, but that's impossible.
Diffraction doesn't work if the wavelength is bigger than the grating's spacing.
And, returning to QM, a particle can't be "smaller" than the associated wavelength.
So, you can't sensibly calculate a diffraction pattern for the the experiment you have proposed.
So there's no way to say whether the particles would follow it or not.
And, as has been pointed out before, you also can't measure it because, in practice big things don't go through small holes.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 21/06/2019 19:18:42
Tell me why you think you can feel a ghost.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2019 01:16:15
You are telling me something physical is able to go through a barrier.I'm not telling you that.
Reality is telling you that.
Tunnelling is real.
It's the mechanism for alpha decay and the way these things work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope
and a stack of other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
The observations tell you that "something physical is able to go through a barrier".
You don't have to listen, but, if reality does not agree with your viewpoint, it is not because reality has made a mistake.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2019 01:16:56
Tell me why you think you can feel a ghost.That's just dross you made up.
Why do you do that?
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 22/06/2019 01:24:45
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2019 01:30:24
you think matter waves are physicalI can't say whether I think they are "physical" or not, because I'm still waiting for you to say what you think that means.
However, tunnelling is real.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 22/06/2019 01:32:54
If tunneling is real, then waves are able to penetrate barriers
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2019 11:55:51
If tunneling is real, then waves are able to penetrate barriersYes- that's the point. The wave function doesn't suddenly drop to zero at the surface of a barrier, it penetrates slightly into it.
So it will still have a non-zero value on "the other side" of a sufficiently thin barrier.
It would really help if you went and learned some science.
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/06/2019 13:06:22
Da da da da daaaa
Hey Joe, I said where you goin' with that brick in your hand?
Alright.
I'm goin down to shoot my old theory
You know I caught it messin' 'round with another theorist.
I'm goin' down to shoot my old theory
You know I caught it messin' 'round with another man.
Da da da da, da da da da, da da da da, da da da da, da da, de da de da daaa
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/06/2019 13:39:50
https://onpracticingguitar.chrisbottaguitar.com/2015/05/jimi-hendrix-hey-joe-solo-analysis.html
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/06/2019 03:45:49
Not at all like matter waves.
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 29/06/2019 20:12:33
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 29/06/2019 20:56:56
Post by: pittsburghjoe on 29/06/2019 23:24:39
We need to know how observation through spacetime converts qm waves to be physical.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/06/2019 09:28:42
If we could mod the variables of a matter wave, we would have absolute control of our reality.So, if we could change the way the universe works, we could change the way the universe works.
Gosh!
Nice video though.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/06/2019 11:40:06
It's easier just to point out their errors. The sensible ones drop the case and learn. The arrogant ones get promoted.I encounter it every day in Health and Safety Executive inspectors who do not read their own company handbook (ignorance) and then invent new "laws" (arrogance) in order to extract fees from their victims.So, when you appealed, how did that go?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/06/2019 13:23:54
Safety Executive inspectors who do not read their own company handbookWhich one is the "company handbook"?
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/index.htm