Summary: Question about expectations related to electron flow and conductivity.
Here's a question I have... imagine a scientist in a lab. In front of him there's a battery (with typical red/black +/- poles). Behind him is a normal light socket. Now, between the battery and the light socket...
The EPR paradox is often described this way: (from Wikipedia)
A common presentation of the paradox is as follows: two particles interact and fly off in opposite directions. Even when the particles are so far apart that any classical interaction would be impossible (see principle of locality), a...
I think the following is kind of what I was getting at in the original post:
Are there any interpretations where entanglement is the "normal"? I mean in the sense that "decoherence" is the special case where no entanglement exists? I don't want to go off the wall with "crazy theories" but I see...
My understanding is that only some schools of thought subscribe to the perspective you describe, while others subscribe to the idea that macro scale objects can be quantum entangled in the way I described. This is correlated to the idea that an electron either does or does not really have a...
Here is a thought experiment. Imagine Schrodinger's cat... in the traditional model, there is a single observer outside the box, and the observer creates an entanglement with the catbox device which reveals the quantum superposition of the enclosed cat. The cat is said to be in a superposition...
I had a couple of interesting thoughts today on the matter of Many Worlds. First is that, in a way, I think the so-called "branching" posited for MWI could be thought of as a derivative of time. For example, time is the derivative of space (i.e. using change in space with respect to time)...
Ok - this is quite interesting as I've not heard it like that before. If the above is true, then that implies that there are fundamental differences between objects. There are P objects which can move at <c, and P' objects which can move at c perhaps.
Now this sparks the next question which...
Sorry if I'm not being clear. It's a bit difficult to articular... let me try again.
Let's assume that P is person, that A is the dining car on a train, and B is the sleeper car on a train. If I'm on that train observing P move from A to B, I observe a particular velocity for him ... let's...
Here's a question that's bothered me for a while.
Suppose you are a person (P) at point A. You travel between point A and B at some fraction of c (speed of light). And so relativity kicks in. Now, that's the standard relativity model and we talk about P with regard to A and B.
Now, what...
I assume that means the experiment would show an interference pattern (implying that the photon went from particle to wave somewhere along the way).
I guess I'm having trouble with this. My understanding (or "interpretation") is that the interference pattern is a result of a wave passing...
I've been wondering about the implications of this experiment and have a couple of questions about variations that I'm wondering if anyone has done. (I did not find any examples of these variations elsewhere).
1) In this variation, you have the photon pass through the slits twice. First...
"Artificial atoms" used to improve compact discs?
This should be very entertaining for all of you. If you visit http://machinadynamica.com/ you will find many interesting devices. Some of them are complete bunk (for example, the "Clever Little Clock", the "Brilliant Pebbles", and the...
so - i understand the basic double slit experiment - and like any sane person, am having a hard time understanding the electron-at-a-time outcome. but i have some questions...
1) why do we assume that an electron is a single "object" or whatever that would pass through one or the other slit...
well. a definite quantity would be "countable". for example, i can easily count whether i have zero apples or 1 apple or 20 apples. i would consider those values "definite".
i cannot easily count -4 apples or infinite apples. those values are not "definite". since there is no such thing as a...
i have a small (i think) question:
a value of zero is a definite value, right? it's easily quantifiable. you either have it or you don't. and a value of 1 is also definite.
however, a value of infinity is not definite. it's an indefinite value.
now, the question is... do quantifiable...