Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

A question of quantum physics

Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

AspergianMutantt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,782
Location: North Idaho. USA

05 Oct 2016, 11:49 am

A particle can be a wave or a particle, being in many places at once till measured, and many elementary particles (those that atoms are made of) can do this. In that of measuring the particle it gets used and absorbed (or otherwise considered destroyed).

Now this brings me to wonder, if their correct in this,

A- does this allow us to control where and when that particle will be when we measure it?

B- and if so, instead of measuring it why cant we use this quark of physics to guide into place those particles and coach them into building atoms?

C- and lastly, if an entangled particle affects the opposing particle when measured, does this mean when one is measured the other loses its wave like properties too? or that once entangled neither any longer has that wave like function? I know that once one is measured (and considered destroyed) they are no longer considered entangled.

Note: I did ask this question before on anther forum, a physics forum, but no one responded. they either didn't understand the question, or it was too below them to answer, or too above them to want to attempt to answer.

Any thoughts on these? please share.


_________________
Master Thread Killer


AspergianMutantt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,782
Location: North Idaho. USA

05 Oct 2016, 5:35 pm

Aww crap, did I just loose everyone in translation as I did on that physics forum? or am I just an idiot not realizing something? No, odds are just because I am an admitted autistic, no one is even going to bother, such are the truth of people and things. I seen this so many times in my life time, where I go ignored then someone years later with a PHD says basically the same thing and gets wildly noticed, its so Ironic, and the only affirmation I get is in the knowing I was right all along, even when everyone else doubted my own intelligence.

Gnight


_________________
Master Thread Killer


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

06 Oct 2016, 5:46 pm

AspergianMutantt wrote:
A particle can be a wave or a particle, being in many places at once till measured, and many elementary particles (those that atoms are made of) can do this. In that of measuring the particle it gets used and absorbed (or otherwise considered destroyed).

Now this brings me to wonder, if their correct in this,

A- does this allow us to control where and when that particle will be when we measure it?

B- and if so, instead of measuring it why cant we use this quark of physics to guide into place those particles and coach them into building atoms?

C- and lastly, if an entangled particle affects the opposing particle when measured, does this mean when one is measured the other loses its wave like properties too? or that once entangled neither any longer has that wave like function? I know that once one is measured (and considered destroyed) they are no longer considered entangled.

Note: I did ask this question before on anther forum, a physics forum, but no one responded. they either didn't understand the question, or it was too below them to answer, or too above them to want to attempt to answer.

Any thoughts on these? please share.


A- sort of.... wherever the measuring takes place- that's not exactly control though...
B- not like you want it, although you can always shoot particles at atoms, like in nuclear enrichment.
but subatomic particles don't just stick together.
C-yes. but. google "quantum eraser"- turns out if we destroy our measurement of one particle without looking at it, the entangled particle will appear as wave again. no, I can't explain this, it runs against any sort of intuition.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

06 Oct 2016, 5:54 pm

Someone mentioned a "High IQ" forum in another thread. They might know more. :mrgreen:


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

06 Oct 2016, 5:57 pm

AspergianMutantt wrote:
Aww crap, did I just loose everyone in translation as I did on that physics forum? or am I just an idiot not realizing something? No, odds are just because I am an admitted autistic, no one is even going to bother, such are the truth of people and things. I seen this so many times in my life time, where I go ignored then someone years later with a PHD says basically the same thing and gets wildly noticed, its so Ironic, and the only affirmation I get is in the knowing I was right all along, even when everyone else doubted my own intelligence.

Gnight


How come you can't get a degree? Did Einstein have a degree?


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,123

06 Oct 2016, 6:01 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle



nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

06 Oct 2016, 6:15 pm

Math. Ugh. Why is it that men are so good at math?
Maybe it's the side of the brain they think with.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,147
Location: temperate zone

06 Oct 2016, 6:31 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Math. Ugh. Why is it that men are so good at math?
Maybe it's the side of the brain they think with.


Did you mean to post this in the other thread next door?



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

06 Oct 2016, 6:37 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Math. Ugh. Why is it that men are so good at math?
Maybe it's the side of the brain they think with.


why are women so bad at it, - oh wait, that's untrue and sexist.
also, to your (rhetorical?) question on whether Einstein had a degree: yes, PhD at 26, ten years before the special theory of relativity. just wanted to make this clear.
but you're right, the OP's questions show limited engagement and understanding, and his rant presumes asking 3 questions was similar to filing a patent for the answer


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

07 Oct 2016, 12:13 pm

PBS Digital has a good series on these issues on Youtube: PBS Space Time Youtube Channel

Of particular relevance to the issues raised in the OP:
Single particle, double slit experiments:


Editing the past with the Quantum Eraser:


Entanglement explored:


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

07 Oct 2016, 9:34 pm

AspergianMutantt wrote:
A particle can be a wave or a particle, being in many places at once till measured, and many elementary particles (those that atoms are made of) can do this. In that of measuring the particle it gets used and absorbed (or otherwise considered destroyed).

Now this brings me to wonder, if their correct in this,

A- does this allow us to control where and when that particle will be when we measure it?

B- and if so, instead of measuring it why cant we use this quark of physics to guide into place those particles and coach them into building atoms?

C- and lastly, if an entangled particle affects the opposing particle when measured, does this mean when one is measured the other loses its wave like properties too? or that once entangled neither any longer has that wave like function? I know that once one is measured (and considered destroyed) they are no longer considered entangled.

Note: I did ask this question before on anther forum, a physics forum, but no one responded. they either didn't understand the question, or it was too below them to answer, or too above them to want to attempt to answer.

Any thoughts on these? please share.


The more exactly you have the position of the particle the more random will be its momentum if you shine a light on it. There is no way of moving a single particle from exactly here to exactly there. Even when we move objects we can control where the center of mass will go but we cannot control the placement of every single atom in the object.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,147
Location: temperate zone

07 Oct 2016, 10:06 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Math. Ugh. Why is it that men are so good at math?
Maybe it's the side of the brain they think with.


That may be a cultural thing. Girls are expected to be bad in math in the west.

School kids in east asia are better than american kids in math, and there is no difference in the genders. Korean, Japanese, and Chinese, girls put us to shame just as much as do the boys (no significant difference in the math scores of the two genders). Or thats what I read somewhere years ago.