41–50 of 73 posts
Since the molecule of 2000 atoms exists in two places, it doubles the mass. Doesn’t this break the law of conservation of mass and energy. Can someone please explain how this is possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is called Quantum Field Theory.
Thanks!
Damn, it wasn't so easy to find the article, because TFA doesn't explicitly provide author names, even. But the link in the image title led to Fein et al. (2019).[0] So what I'm curious about is how far apart those "Two Places at Once" are. And if I'm understanding Fig. 2 correctly, it's large . That is ... > Fig. 2 | interference data. a, Counts as a function of the transverse position of the third grating with a si…
Thank you! Rant: Not linking to the source article is a crime conmited by many outlets trying to report on science. I do not understand that practice. It is even worse when the researcher's institution does this in a public press release (MIT is consistently guilty of this). Are these people afraid that their watered down "explanations" are so wromg that even a cursory glance over the paper will show this? Some news…
https://www.slideshare.net/cartercole/the-aol-way-leaked-pla...
External links are used for SEO and generally reserved for partner-websites or their own properties to recirculate traffic. Here we have an article reposted from space.com to scientificamerican.com that only links to nature.com and livescience.com. Future US owns space.com + livescience.com, and Springer Nature owns scientificamerican.com + nature.com.
So could you have these two places be inside and outside a black holes event horizen?
Please correct me where I am wrong, I have only studied quantum physics as a hobby. I dislike this description of things existing in two places at once, this is because I believe that objects exist in one place, then they move to the next place. The interference pattern only highlights the probability of where the particle will be when it's next observed, or "where it moved to". The object does not interfere with its…
Bohmian mechanics was made for people like you.
Please correct me where I am wrong, I have only studied quantum physics as a hobby. I dislike this description of things existing in two places at once, this is because I believe that objects exist in one place, then they move to the next place. The interference pattern only highlights the probability of where the particle will be when it's next observed, or "where it moved to". The object does not interfere with its…
> the wave is something separate from the object but is related to it. This is a common idea in Bohmian epistemology, but, speaking as a professional physicist, I don't think most physicists would hold this position. The wave is the object, the object is the wave. "Particle/wave duality" or whatever is just bad language for "a quantum mechanical thing" I think the point of saying it "exists at two places at once" is…
That's true, but those that do hold it hew to it rather vigorously.
The scientist who find the point where super position stops will get the Nobel price for sure, I could give you a hint, it is less than my cat, I'm sure it never been in two places at once (Schrödinger is right about his cat too)
The scientist who find the point where super position stops will get the Nobel price for sure, I could give you a hint, it is less than my cat, I'm sure it never been in two places at once (Schrödinger is right about his cat too)
My guess is that if the object can record for itself which slit it went through, the effect would stop.