4 ms·

Before discussing chaos in QM, I'd like someone more knowledgeable than me to explain a few things to me, if you don't mind, of course: 1) how do we know parti

Before discussing chaos in QM, I'd like someone more knowledgeable than me to explain a few things to me, if you don't mind, of course: 1) how do we know particles act as/are waves? the double slit experiments does not seem to be proof of that: a) if we rotate the slits 90 degrees, then the interference pattern also rotates 90 degrees in the same direction...does that mean the wave also rotates 90 degrees? does this mean the wave is 3d? and if so, why is the interference pattern not a checkerboard? b) if we enlarge the slits, the interference pattern goes away; the more we enlarge the slits, the more the interference pattern disappears. This means that in our original experiment, the slits were too small for the particle and the particle hits both slits simultaneously, and hence the interference pattern. Why should then the particle be a wave? putting a detector means to make the two slit equipment one slit effectively, making the interference pattern disappear. How can then one reach a conclusion that particles are waves? 2) how do we know that entanglement is the result of 'spooky action at a distance' and not the result of creating two entangled particles? couldn't it be that the particles are created with correlated spins and no communication ever occurs between them? Why am I asking these simple questions and not contribute to the discussion meaningfully, you might ask? well, it seems QM has all the markings of an strange theory, that works for some cases, does not work for some others, and it requires magic for some others. Those things make me think that the basics of QM may be invalid, so I am really questioning those basics. I am sure I am 100% wrong, so please do illuminate me on the questions above; I've tried to ask before, and in different sites, the worst responses being 'go away lame person! how you dare questioning are beautiful intellect!!!', and the best responses being lots and lots of math that don't really answer my basic questions. I am just looking for simple straightforward answers.

eterevsky 4y ago
Regarding waves and interference, have a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TshYfYIxR9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TshYfYIxR9E. It shows how the interference patterns actually look. Yes, the wave is 3D and the interference patterns can be kind of like checker board. We are usually considering a 2D example because it is simpler to visualize and analize. > how do we know that entanglement is the result of 'spooky action at a distance' and not the result of creating two entangled particles? A very high-level explanation is that we know this because quantum computers work (even though right now we can't build them big enough to be useful) and it can't be explained by any classical effects.
GoblinSlayer 4y ago
There's pilot wave theory, where a particle behaves like a particle and is accompanied by a pilot wave, which behaves like a wave, the particle is also nonlocally affected by its pilot wave. This theory is nonlocal, which is problematic for different reasons. >how do we know that entanglement is the result of 'spooky action at a distance' The claim is opposite: spooky action at a distance is a result of entanglement. > couldn't it be that the particles are created with correlated spins and no communication ever occurs between them? That's how MWI explains entanglement.

eterevsky 4y ago

Regarding waves and interference, have a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TshYfYIxR9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TshYfYIxR9E. It shows how the interference patterns actually look. Yes, the wave is 3D and the interference patterns can be kind of like checker board. We are usually considering a 2D example because it is simpler to visualize and analize. > how do we know that entanglement is the result of 'spooky action at a distance' and not the result of creating two entangled particles? A very high-level explanation is that we know this because quantum computers work (even though right now we can't build them big enough to be useful) and it can't be explained by any classical effects.

GoblinSlayer 4y ago

There's pilot wave theory, where a particle behaves like a particle and is accompanied by a pilot wave, which behaves like a wave, the particle is also nonlocally affected by its pilot wave. This theory is nonlocal, which is problematic for different reasons. >how do we know that entanglement is the result of 'spooky action at a distance' The claim is opposite: spooky action at a distance is a result of entanglement. > couldn't it be that the particles are created with correlated spins and no communication ever occurs between them? That's how MWI explains entanglement.