Science > Physics > Wave Function Collapse: question about design of electron (or photon) detector.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Vipassana" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2007 11:30:18 AM |
| Object: |
Wave Function Collapse: question about design of electron (or photon) detector. |
I suspect that these electron, photon detectors has something to do
with quantum wave function collapse. Somebody know how electron,
photon detector works?
.
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave Function Collapse: question about design of electron (or photon) detector. |
03 Oct 2007 03:36:36 PM |
|
|
Vipassana spammed:
I suspect that these electron, photon detectors has something to do
with quantum wave function collapse. Somebody know how electron,
photon detector works?
Clearly you are lost. Here's a hint: Mathematics does NOT equal
reality!
A quantum wave function is merely a probabilistic description of
likely events in reality. Physicists will assure you nobody can know
any more than this, but they really have no idea if it's true or not.
So wave function collapse is nothing more than probability collapse.
That has little to do with the actual mechanisms of detectors. For
example an electron detector works by having an electron striking a
surface which then kicks out more electrons which strike another
surface etc. It's a multiplier effect but has nothing to do with the
initial detection or the probability of just WHERE the electron will
land. You need to define your questions better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vipassana" |
|
| Title: Radiowave motion detector to 'measure' particle in quantum double slit experiment |
05 Oct 2007 02:42:16 PM |
|
|
Benj wrote:
You need to define your questions better.
I mean single electron double slit experiment produce interference
pattern even though radio waves are present in room. But it is said
that it is not possible to detect through which slit electron entered.
Why don't they fix simple radiowave motion detector in one slit? The
electron will break radiowave signal triggering alarm and we will know
through which slit electron entered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiowave motion detector to 'measure' particle in quantum double slit experiment |
05 Oct 2007 08:07:14 PM |
|
|
Dear Vipassana:
"Vipassana" <veepassana@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191613336.774369.105350@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Benj wrote:
You need to define your questions better.
I mean single electron double slit experiment produce
interference pattern even though radio waves are
present in room. But it is said that it is not possible
to detect through which slit electron entered. Why
don't they fix simple radiowave motion detector in
one slit? The electron will break radiowave signal
triggering alarm and we will know through which slit
electron entered.
Knowing which slit the particle passes through changes the
diffraction patttern, and *reduces* the total number of particles
detected.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9745
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiowave motion detector to 'measure' particle in quantum doubleslit experiment |
05 Oct 2007 06:08:39 PM |
|
|
Vipassana wrote:
Benj wrote:
You need to define your questions better.
I mean single electron double slit experiment produce interference
pattern even though radio waves are present in room. But it is said
that it is not possible to detect through which slit electron entered.
Why don't they fix simple radiowave motion detector in one slit? The
electron will break radiowave signal triggering alarm and we will know
through which slit electron entered.
Hey idiot - you will get two one-slit diffraction patterns if you
look. Quantum eraser and quantum double eraser experiments. At least
aspire to half-wit and suggest vertical and horizontal polarizers.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave Function Collapse: question about design of electron (or photon) detector. |
04 Oct 2007 09:09:34 PM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 9:36 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
A quantum wave function is merely a probabilistic description of
likely events in reality. Physicists will assure you nobody can know
any more than this, but they really have no idea if it's true or not.
So how come you know this and physicists don't?
A textbook I used described this as a possible (even most commonly
accepted) interpretation, and I've never heard any physicist assuring
anybody that it's a fact. I think you hang around the wrong crowd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave Function Collapse: question about design of electron (or photon) detector. |
05 Oct 2007 01:07:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Oct 4, 9:36 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
A quantum wave function is merely a probabilistic description of
likely events in reality. Physicists will assure you nobody can know
any more than this, but they really have no idea if it's true or not.
So how come you know this and physicists don't?
Um, that would be because I am not a believer in their religion so I
don't accept their dogma.
A textbook I used described this as a possible (even most commonly
accepted) interpretation, and I've never heard any physicist assuring
anybody that it's a fact. I think you hang around the wrong crowd.
Sure a textbook will give you commonly accepted interpretations.
That's what they do! But you were asking to go beyond the commonly
accepted. So I gave you a hint.
Actually I was talking about electrons which are a bit easier to deal
with. The problem of the photo electric effect is a true puzzle. How
can a photon have wave properties and at the same time transfer all
it's energy to a detector in such a short time? It is "explained" by
"particle-wave duality" but that really explains nothing at all! So
even if a photon isn't a particle but only a wave packet, the energy
transfer time still remains as a problem. So yeah, you are looking in
the right place, but I don't think at this time anyone can give you a
reasonable explanation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Wave Function Collapse: question about design of electron (or photon) detector. |
06 Oct 2007 06:07:03 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 11:07 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
with. The problem of the photo electric effect is a true puzzle. How
can a photon have wave properties and at the same time transfer all
it's energy to a detector in such a short time? It is "explained" by
There is no "it is energy", you retarded *****!
"particle-wave duality" but that really explains nothing at all! So
even if a photon isn't a particle but only a wave packet, the energy
transfer time still remains as a problem. So yeah, you are looking in
the right place, but I don't think at this time anyone can give you a
reasonable explanation.
The fot=F2n is not a mote, ever; it is a whit, which fares at c, which
is a boost of the el=E8ctr=F2n's fields and rates, whereafter such
el=E8ctr=F2n travels at its own speed.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave Function Collapse: question about design of electron (or photon) detector. |
06 Oct 2007 11:47:15 AM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
On Oct 4, 11:07 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
with. The problem of the photo electric effect is a true puzzle. How
can a photon have wave properties and at the same time transfer all
it's energy to a detector in such a short time? It is "explained" by
There is no "it is energy", you retarded *****!
Welcome back sweetheat! Love you too!
"particle-wave duality" but that really explains nothing at all! So
even if a photon isn't a particle but only a wave packet, the energy
transfer time still remains as a problem. So yeah, you are looking in
the right place, but I don't think at this time anyone can give you a
reasonable explanation.
The fot=F2n is not a mote, ever; it is a whit, which fares at c, which
is a boost of the el=E8ctr=F2n's fields and rates, whereafter such
el=E8ctr=F2n travels at its own speed.
Foton is a whit but IS something. An electron is a mote but is
NOTHING. In fact it is LESS THAN NOTHING! Sort of like your remarks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
