3 ms·
> Both wave pictures are a mathematical approximation to the "real" system of particles moving. Yes, exactly. > You can say that picturing it as "the wave fro
by tsimionescu 2y ago
> Both wave pictures are a mathematical approximation to the "real" system of particles moving.
Yes, exactly.
> You can say that picturing it as "the wave from the first rock overlaid on the wave from the second rock" is an interpretation that makes more physical sense or is nicer to think about, but that's just as true in the QM case.
No, because in QM, the wavefunction is the real, final picture. Any split is arbitrary, the two rocks didn't "cause" the waves, the the wavefunction of all the molecules that make up the rocks and the water has higher amplitudes for states in which the water molecules look like the wavey surface, and lower amplitudes for states in which the rocks touch the water but the water doesn't move at all, etc. That's all the physics can say.
- lmm 2y ago> No, because in QM, the wavefunction is the real, final picture. Any split is arbitrary, the two rocks didn't "cause" the waves But at the wave picture level that's always true. You can break down a water wave into a bunch of particles moving according to forces, sure. But that doesn't actually help you answer the question of whether a wave that's gone through a pair of slits is now one wave or two waves, because when you're looking at the particles and forces you can't see the waves any more (except as patterns in the particles and forces - but then you're back in the wave picture).