That is exactly what “superstition” is.
When something is happening and you can’t explain it with your current understanding, you are tempting to just make up magical forces doing magical things. And that is exactly what QP is entirely about.
But don’t confuse Quantum Mechanics with Quantum Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a statistical study presuming quantization, so that they can use statistical math. QM is fine because it is honest. QP is pure speculative superstition inventing properties because they can’t figure out how to make their other theories fit into the data. QP tries to explain WHY. QM doesn’t care why (“The School of Shut Up and Calculate”).
In reality, there is no fixed quantum of anything but actual physical particles, atoms, and the molecules they form. Quantumizing is like digitizing. Just because it makes things easier to calculate doesn’t mean that the universe is made of digits.
your current understanding of everything is built off of ‘magical forces doing magical things’; microwaves, light-bulbs, pharmaceuticals, etc… You surely know that those things exist, but you’ve had to assume processes at play which you can’t see.
I’m not sure it’s entirely ‘just statistics’; the results of the double slit experiment has no other explanation to it. If how we ‘see things’ and ascribe ‘location’ to them is determined by electromagnetism, then ‘where things actually are’ could be different depending on which forces are influencing them at that moment and to what extent.
Where are you getting this difference between quantum mechanics and quantum physics?
If you attribute ‘charge’ to particles, then you have already accepted quantizing them.
I don’t even know why that got brought up, I’m just going to ignore that section of your post.
The quantization of particles in physics ascribes numerical values to them like “charge” or “spin” to explain their behavior. If you believe in “charge”, you already believe in quantum mechanics.
If you can, don’t just say that you can and leave it at that. Don’t hold yourself up just to be a showman unless it’s unintentional.
the double slit experiment is easily explained: Particles act differently when watched than when not watched, the same as people do. Some would enjoy being watched while others would take offense to it. Certainly we act differently when we feel we’re not being watched than when we’re around others unless we’re truly comfortable in our own skin while being watched or while perceiving that we’re being watched.
I dunno why people have to use words such as quantization to explain it. If you want the particles to work as they should, you just have to trust them to do so. When you watch and observe them and try to quantify their movements, then they are bound by that because they’re not busy breaking the rules you claim are impossible to break. These particles are not stupid. They know what happens when man sees or hears something he doesn’t like and too many magical things have already been destroyed by our species temper tantrums, to the point where they are afraid of showing man their true side while man seems determined to find it even though he knows he’s not going to like the uncomfortable questions it raises.
It parallels our own psychology as we seek answers we constantly deny while trying to rationalize that it was never that at all and that the answer must still be out there. Such abject denial only having one possible outcome as everything tries to repress itself for the sake of such immature and ignorant brutes.
I don’t believe so. I’m just applying psychology and religion to math for a better understanding. With that quote in your signature, I figured you would understand:
You can get into all the technical mumbo-jumbo you assholes have made for it all, all I did was simplify it and make it easier to understand for other people.
Oh give me a break. They were testing charge long before they ever even thought of any kind of quantization. It is like saying that America invented Democracy… kids…
I mean, have you even fucking considered that they’re self-aware and have their own consciousness, or are you bastards too caught up in the moment of discovery that these particles will get in their own way and certain ones will act just the same as other ones even though being assumed as completely different. Didn’t that set off a few Clarion Bells for you guys? Too busy assigning artificial properties to them and making them jump through hoops all so you can diagnose them and figure them out.
“quantization” is literally “giving discrete values”; ascribing “charge” to particles is quantization by definition. There is no clear point in history when classical physics became quantum mechanics. Study of electromagnetism just sort of seamlessly merged into what became known as quantum mechanics.
yeah, I do have to agree on that. Things haven’t really changed, we’ve just learned more about them. It’s like how we no longer consider Pluto a planet and zero is a number. We weren’t taught those things when I was growing up; pluto was still a planet and zero was never a number. It’s hard to reconcile those differences some times.
The fact is that quantization is the constraining of a continuous set of values to a relatively small and discrete set. To give a charge is much the same, you have to move from real numbers to variable integers. These particles act in much the same way.
Alright, here you go you guys, the double slit experiment explained:
As an electron propagates, it is emitting its electromagnetic field which travels at the speed of light. As the electron passes through one of the slits, the electromagnetic field it was emitting before it entered the slit is still propagating away from its point of emission at the speed of light in all directions as a wave, so the electron’s electromagnetic field passes through both slits while the electron itself only passes through one. As the electron leaves the slit, it interacts with its own electromagnetic field which it emitted earlier. Hence, the interference pattern.
“Ascribing a charge” is not quantizing it except as a mere example for an explanation of some relationship. It is giving an estimate of value to something that can never be perfectly precisely measured. They know that the decimal representation of a value is limited to the number of digits that can be recorded and accurately measured. Classical physics is not proposing that a given number is perfectly exact. Although they do propose that relationships between values are perfectly exact (calculus, which wouldn’t work in a quantized universe. But it does work in the real universe).
Right off the bat, electrons don’t “emit” charge. They are the result of charge, a center of concentration of the charge field.
There is a problem with that (besides the above mentioned issue).
Each electron would emit only one wave in front of itself (given that it “emits”). It could possibly interact with its own emission, but only once. That would cause that particular electron to shift its course.
The next electron has no idea where the first electron went. Its particular path is slightly different than the first. So when it has the same kind of interaction with its own emitted wave, it takes a still different course.
The question is; since the electrons seem to gather in certain places and avoid others, how do the electrons know where on the screen to gather and where to avoid?
According to Quantum Physics, they consider if they are being watched and choose based on that.
Physicists have been admitting that there are two physical “worlds” for them: (1) the “world of classical physics” and (2) the “world of quantum physics”.
Quantum Physics (and QM) are entirely about mental/mathematical constructs, not physical reality. Their “waves” are merely calculated graphs/equations/functions. The “wave-function collapse” is a collapse of the equation, the function. QM is NOT talking about a physical wave. But QP superstitiously proposes that the equation itself Is the only reality and that is why it collapses when an observer is involved. The equation is only in his head, but then so is all of reality (the double-slit experiment itself). If he isn’t observing, he can’t put in the extra information, thus the equation (in his head) doesn’t collapse. It is a con game of the mind, not Science at all.
Before particles had a charge, everything was assumed to have a north and a south. Finding that a particle can be positive or negative was perhaps the first time a particle had been quantized. However crude their physical representations of the particles (they obviously didn’t know the true shapes of electron orbitals), they still had the rote pattern of electrons ‘shells’ figured out.
Why do you think they only emit one wave? They are emitting a field constantly. Otherwise you are assuming action at a distance for two particles to be able to interact without having emitted a constant field.
You can completely dump the whole “particles aware that they’re being watched” notion in my opinion. There is however such thing as an ‘observer effect’, and that’s because the act of observation is mediated by a force carrier, implying that whatever you are observing had to have moved in the act of being observed.
You have no idea at all of what you are talking about concerning that entire issue.
The only wave that can occur by the electron traveling is the wave that proceeds in front of the electron. The electron takes one vector and thus would produce only one “wave-front” with which to interact.
I’m replying from a phone so it’s very difficult to manage embedded quotes, but in response to James:
How don’t I
How does the second part of your post explain why there wouldn’t be an interference pattern?
These electrons are being fired at about 40% the speed of light from what I’ve read, that’s fast enough to meet its own electromagnetic field in certain circumstances under the right conditions
For a pattern to form, there has to be a reason for all electrons to avoid particular regions on the screen, regardless of the initial angle they entered the slots.
