4 ms·
It is very common in physics that the same phenomenon can be explained using different concepts. Treating particles hitting a regular structure as diffraction o
by fsh 7y ago
It is very common in physics that the same phenomenon can be explained using different concepts. Treating particles hitting a regular structure as diffraction of de Broglie waves gives exactly the same results as the momentum transfer approach the author prefers. In fact, both can be derived from standard quantum mechanics and both are widely used, depending on which is easier in the particular case.
However, scattering particles off objects is only one of many experiments they can be done. For instance, one will have a hard time explaining how atoms work without using some kind of wavefunction description of the electrons. Furthermore, as other commenters have mentioned, there are more sophisticated versions of the double-slit experiment, such as the delayed-choice quantum eraser, where the "quantum weirdness" simply cannot be argued away.
Frankly, it is pretty insulting by the author to assume that physicists intentionally choose the "more complicated" explanation over the "simpler" one.
- dekhn 7y ago+1 for the delayed choice quantum eraser as being the one experiment that makes it more or less impossible to argue against quantum weirdness.
- aeternum 7y agoThe delayed choice quantum eraser is often explained as being more 'spooky' than it actually is. The interference patterns only appear when you compare coincidences between the detectors. It's easy to see you could get an interference pattern after the fact by taking a bell curve (no interference) and subtracting out a sine curve (interference).
- ddalex 7y agobut how do you get the sine curve in the first place? because you're not subtracting a sine curve, you're subtracting non-coincidences, for which there is no reason they would be on the sine curve
- kgwgk 7y agoThe ‘Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser’ Neither Erases Nor Delays https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03137.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03137.pdf
- strainer 7y agoThe author is frustrated by their apparent misunderstanding of theory and history of theory that is very hard to understand, and is even not completely understood yet, and is right to be subject to new questions and outlooks. It seems equally selfish to be offended personally or in a groups honor, by accusations of innate intellectual prejudices at large, than it is selfish for the intellectually isolated individual to entertain and express such accusations.
- ryanthedev 7y agoWell I don't believe that's what he intended. It seemed he was trying to argue about the double slit not being evidence of wave particle duality. I tend to agree, the notion of matter being in two places at once is nonsense. Also I agree with the author that the majority of people tend to point to the double slit as some type of proof.
- coldtea 7y ago>I tend to agree, the notion of matter being in two places at once is nonsense. Based on what? Empirical experience with macroscopic objects? There are tons of phenomenons that are at odds with everyday empirical experience for that to matter (relativity has all kinds of such cases).
- ryanthedev 7y agoBased on the fact that no two reference frames are the same. Based on the fact that everything points to the universe being deterministic. Also we have never been able to even prove it mathematically.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- EliRivers 7y agoHow about radioactive decay? Is that deterministic? Do atoms contain extra state somehow that determines when they will decay?
- ryanthedev 7y agoYeah. It is? I mean that's how we determine the half life of things...
- deelowe 7y ago> Well I don't believe that's what he intended. Agreed. Remember he started by saying the double slit experiment has been performed on much larger molecules at this point. People who come across this will go "wait a second?!" and question what they've been told.