/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11814568
>are usually waves and only briefly turn into particles when they have to interact with any other "particle"?

And this is what happens when super-intelligent people who don't truly understand a phenomenon try to put it into terms that anyone can understand. Kinda like gravity bending space-time, which works fine on a mathematical level but no one actually knows how everything in the universe attracts everything else in the universe.

>>11814602
Turning a particle into a wave means you could delete its precise spatial coordinates, which frees up memory of our simulation computer.

>>11814568
OP here, I specifically wanted to ask if a particle that was observed behind a split turn into a wave again. Or is it from then on to eternity a particle?

>>11814568
They don't "turn" into particles. Particles is how we see things, but waves are how they are. Why is that?

Answer 1) Rest of the waves are destroyed (Copenhagen) 2) The waves always carry the particles like a surfer (pilot wave) 3) Waves are always waves and never particles. We only see particles because everything is entangled and we can only see the entangled parts. We can't see/interact with 99.99999999999% of non-entangled wave.

>>11814891
Last one is modified everettian many-world.


>>11814844
Depends on interpetation. For Copenhagen, the particles are "time traveling" back and forth when the particles go back to wave and henceforth. For many world, its always wave. However Particle/wave behavior is dependent on entangled interactions.

>>11814568
OP here again. I've read that the double slit experiments even works with a carbon-60-molecule and a similar experiment worked with molecules with a mass of 10,000 units. Can you make many small slits where the particle would be physically too big to go through but where it can still go through as a wave?

>>11814602
>but no one actually knows how everything in the universe attracts everything else in the universe.

every time it's been narrated the readers fail to visualize it. it the movement it reduced to one shape you immediately talk shit and pretend it's another platonic solid conspiracy and never get past shit talking.

that's the problem with scientists, they have memorized all the facts but they are not based in agency, and that's dysfunctional.

at some point a topography of pic related grows out for lightyears into a bowl shape, eventually turning into a sphere and pulling back towards the source. the spear of the departure envelope becomes the arrival envelope and it pierces itself, causing the shapes to fold across each other in 4 vectors. this quadrilateral replication plenum is a runaway effect and the shapes now "print" or generate at that source through infinite octaves, which can all collapse the same way as the source shape. any vertex can be moved from any point to another in the isotropic vector matrix, the folding speed limit of which is C. there is no speed limit on light or information withing the matrix, which is what the double slit experiment captures. a given luminal value which has accrued enough holographic mass to become a particle has circumnavigated the isotropic vector matrix, and come back to where it started all in one photograph. this explains all quantum and paranormal phenomena, the expansion of the universe, the existence of dark matter, how empty space can exist while holding the celestial bodies in place, how gravity can bend and collapse the space time continuum (isotropic vector matrix), where the world's religious symbols come from, where magnetism comes from, and why scientists are too egotistical to see what is hanging around everyone's necks.

>>11815094
Please take your anti-psychotics, anon.

>>11815095
declared sane in a court of law thanks to the way people like you treat your community members. also the math has won awards, we are way past psychological abuse.

>>11814891
Isn't the most widely-accepted theory that there are neither particles nor waves, but just fields? And that certain localized vibrations in those fields can create phenomena which we may perceive as particles and/or waves depending on the particular circumstances.

I know this isn't like a proven theory or anything and that there's still a lot that's not understood about physics and quantum mechanics, but I thought quantum field theory was kind of the prevailing thing at the moment, even if it's not unified with general relativity.

>>11815094

>>11815100
>declared sane in a court of law

>>11815109

Fields theory is slightly different from quantum theory.

>>11815100
last warning. take your meds or we´ll turn on the mind control machine at the police station again.

>>11815094
>tfw you aren't smart enough to tell if this post is high-IQ or schizo

>>11815094
anon are you alright

>>11814568
Particle wave duality is saying that both the particle and the wave are idealizations used to help model the phenomena. They are useful in tandem but one should not think that there are either waves or there are particles.

>>11814568
everything is waves, man.

>>11814568
it's just a way to describe how they behave. we dont understand the true nature of reality. everything from quantum mechanics on is literally gobbledegook magic.

>>11814568
Is light a wave or a particle?

>>11817149
maybe

>>11814568
>"particles" are usually waves and only briefly turn into particles
No, what you learned is that light can and does act simultaneously as a wave and a particle when necessary.

>>11816167
>that's the problem with scientists, they have memorized all the facts
>this explains all quantum and paranormal phenomena

Hmm yeah hard to tell if schizo or not

>>11814568
>Did I learn correctly from the double slit experiment that "particles" are usually waves and only briefly turn into particles when they have to interact with any other "particle"?
No, it teaches you that electrons, photons etc are neither particles nor waves. They're quantum particles which in some situations behave like waves and behave like particles in others. The classical concepts of wave and particle do not apply anymore.

>>11814568
interactions force particles from superpositions into a (subset of) eigenstates of the observable. So yes, kind of.

>>11814844
if a particle goes into an eigenstate, it theoretically remains in that state. The thing is, some observables like position/momentum or spin in x/y/z are not commutative. This means if you measure a particle’s spin as +x, it stays as +x. Now the state +x is a superposition of +- in y and z. Of course this assumes that the particle is perfectly isolated.

>>11815055
yes. In quantum mechanics, try to get rid of your intuitive distinction of wave and particle.
What you describe here is called tunneling, the slits would act as a potential barrier.
I can recommend Kenneth Krane - Modern Physics for some great descriptions. If you really want to learn more, go work through any introductory Linear Algebra book followed by introductory functional analysis. This should give you enough basics and intuition to work through a quantum mechanics one.

>>11814568
it doesn't turn into anything before or after anything else. It acts exactly how it acts and that's that. All the equations, particles, and waves are just models. They're good models, but only models.

>>11816975
with the weird caveat that we can calculate and predict the magic.

>>11814824
wouldn't it take more processing power to render a probability wave containing every possible position than it would a single defined point?