Re: OT: 'Quantum Enigma', part 1
- From: moviePig <pwallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 30, 5:07 pm, calvin <cri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:15 pm, moviePig <pwall...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:50 am, calvin <cri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 30, 10:29 am, moviePig <pwall...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The two experiments are mutually exclusive and can't be
combined ...because any(first) observation of results is part of the
experiment, and concludes it. E.g., any photon that you observe
dislodging an electron becomes, at the moment of observation and
forevermore, a particle rather than a wave, and can thus no longer
participate in any wave-interference that a subsequent observation
might seek. (I've little doubt the book includes all these
concepts... though I won't speak to the order in which they're
presented.)
I think that now, if not before, you understand what I have been
saying, so I'll drop that part of it. And I don't deny your last
parenthetical comment.
But your claim that the experiments can't be combined should
be addressed. I don't know what the apparatus for detecting the
photoelectric effect looks like, but it's not hard to imagine (1) a
vertical flat metal surface onto which light is projected through
two verical parallel slits, causing the expected interference
pattern of vertical bright and dark bands; and (2) a horizontally
sliding detector that can move across the bands, detecting
just below itself electrons ejected from the uppermost part of
the bands below it, ie. the part not obscured by the detector.
I don't think that this, in principle, is unreasonable to imagine
because we know that there is an apparatus, whatever it looks
like, that can detect the photoelectric effect on some area of
a metal surface that is not obscurred by the apparatus.
So, unless you want to make an engineering argument against
it, it seems to me that the two experiments can be combined.
The physicist merely has to stand there observing both the
interference pattern and the photoelectric effect simultaneously.
I don't see that your argument, above, prevents him from doing
this.
Let's grant an even more convenient experiment arrangement (...one
that, coincidentally, approaches my earlier profferred one). Let's
say our screen is conveniently "translucent", such that anyone can
plainly observe from the rear the impact and position of photons as
they arrive via the double-slit in the front. So, e.g., if we project
a lone photon, we can easily stroll over and spy the little impact-
crater it left on our screen ...and, if we project twenty such
photons, there'll be twenty little craters for us to view at our
leisure. Next, for our detection-apparati let's point two cameras at
the (virgin) screen. The first camera, a still-camera, will
photograph the screen only once, after a million photons have been
sent. The second camera, a motion-picture camera, will photograph the
screen after *each* of the (same) million photons has been
sent ...i.e., thus producing a million-frame movie, the last frame of
which will be exposed essentially simultaneously with the still-
camera's (sole) frame. Having thus set things up, we leave the room,
and the experiment is (automatically) run. Then, we return and
examine our captured images (...images which, if I'm not mistaken,
approximately satisfy your wish for a "simultaneous dual-
experiment") . Now... ought we to expect the still-camera image and
the *last* motion-picture camera image to match each other?
Before I key in a thousand words trying to deal with that, I
would like to know what it purports to show. You said,
"The two experiments are mutually exclusive and can't be
combined," referring, I thought, to the two experiments
that I purported to combine, and (so far) believe that I did
combine in my last post.
You didn't respond by pointing out a flaw in what I proposed,
but instead you proposed new experiments, ending with a
question. Are you saying that if I answer your question
correctly, I should see that the two experiments that I tried
to combine cannot be thus combined?
If so, then I will give it a shot, but if not, I would like to know
what other purpose motivates your proposed set-up and
question.- Hide quoted text -
Deal with my semi-Socratic question or not, solely at your own option
and peril. What it purports to do is to combine into simultaneity the
two mutually exclusive observations that you proposed, and, ideally,
to lead to a clearer illustration of how QM does, in fact, declare
them mutually exclusive ...more directly than if I set out to
delineate "flaws" in your proposition. Again, suit yourself ...as
this is indeed merely me instructing you re my understanding of QM,
whatever that may be worth.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: 'Quantum Enigma', part 1
- From: calvin
- Re: OT: 'Quantum Enigma', part 1
- Next by Date: Re: "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" World Premiere - Arrivals
- Next by thread: Re: OT: 'Quantum Enigma', part 1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
