Recent content by Souma

That is a bold statement, sir. I like it.

Thank you very much for this information. This is actually really valuable to me.

Let's take a Mach-Zender interferometer experiment as an example. In the picture below, I have sketched it (sorry for the bad sketch), where the blue lines are the mirrors (the ones with black inside are half splitters), the red boxes are the detectors, the green lines are the paths (possible...

Sorry if I sounded like that, but I never said or thought that the answer doesn't count or bad. I am actually amazed that scientists can conserve the particle without destroying it when observing it. If you look at my post, you can see that I also asked about if we will get interesting results...

I actually didn't know it was possible to keep the particle without destroying it. Thank you for your example. But what about those experiments in which the particle is destroyed? will it be of any use to keep the particle? or will the results be the same as using different particles (of the...

When a particle is observed, an interaction must happen between it and the measuring apparatus. But, this interaction mostly (if not always) leads to the loss of the particle, and hence, can't be used again to do the same experiment or different experiments. I know that particles are identical...

You are right. We drifted away from our main topic. Thank you very much for your time.

Your right. Natural sciences don't have the obligation to answer the "why" questions. I am more into the philosophical aspects of natural sciences, that is why I feel knowing why is as important as knowing how things work in our universe. It's as if you have a machine you don't know anything...

This is what makes quantum mechanics unsatisfactory. How can the most realistic description of nature give only numbers without meaning? I mean, yes we can predict events to great accuracy by using QM, but as long as the "why" question is not answered, QM will remain unsatisfying.

Thank you very much for this, I will definitely check it out.

It is actually not clear what size really means, but I think its meaning lies in solving the problem of "getting deeper" in the atom. We can't keep saying there's something inside something else, otherwise no ground will be reached. Dirac gave that definition of size in an attempt to reach the...

I see. But what if we considered the degree of disturbance? even if the whole system is disturbed, do you think the particles of the system will be disturbed equally?

I will keep that in mind. But do you think there's any better way of defining the size of things?

Hello everyone, I hope you are having a nice day, I was reading [The principles of Quantum Mechanics by P.A.M Dirac], and I was attracted to the definition of size. The book says: "If the object under observation is such that the unavoidable limiting disturbance is negligible, then the object...

Not very convincing. Even if HUP gives a good explanation to these things, it doesn't qualify it is a necessary thing for our universe.