Timeline for What time does the particle reach the screen in this thought experiment?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
38 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2021 at 10:52 | history | edited | user86425 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 13, 2021 at 10:20 | history | edited | user86425 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 99 characters in body
|
| Oct 24, 2020 at 18:22 | history | edited | user86425 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Oct 24, 2020 at 18:21 | answer | added | my2cts | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 24, 2020 at 18:21 | history | edited | user86425 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 686 characters in body
|
| S Oct 24, 2020 at 18:06 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Oct 24, 2020 at 18:06 | history | notice removed | user86425 | ||
| Oct 23, 2020 at 12:51 | answer | added | More Anonymous | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 23, 2020 at 1:22 | comment | added | don't train ai on me | Misra and Sudarshan do not advocate a more subtle variant of their proposal, their view as written in the paper is that the theory is incomplete because it should be predictive for this case. That paper is the origin of the reference to Zeno in QM. I am aware of interaction-free measurement. However it does not apply to every moment that a position of a particle is not observed, as it leads to the Zeno Effect. Can you provide the expression for the probability density in the approach you suggest? There is more than one finite-dt method so I cannot properly critique what has not been said. | |
| Oct 23, 2020 at 1:10 | comment | added | benrg | @doublefelix The paper you linked points out that a "simple natural approach to this problem" suggests that the particle will never decay if continuously observed. It is not suggesting that that's actually the case, only that the obvious argument leads to an absurd result and you need a more subtle approach. We do perform continuous measurements and do observe particles that way, as the abstract also says. Interaction-free measurement is a completely uncontroversial part of quantum mechanics. If you aren't familiar with it, then you were poorly taught. | |
| Oct 23, 2020 at 0:08 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| S Oct 21, 2020 at 10:26 | history | edited | Ankit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor spelling and formatting changes; added tag
|
| S Oct 21, 2020 at 10:26 | history | suggested | PNS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor spelling and formatting changes; added tag
|
| Oct 21, 2020 at 10:15 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 21, 2020 at 10:26 | |||||
| Oct 19, 2020 at 23:15 | comment | added | don't train ai on me | @knzhou "Every moment that it doesn't click causes a partial collapse of the wavefunction" - I know this to be not only unsupported by any experimental evidence, but also not true, as it leads to the quantum zeno effect and the prediction that the particle never arrives. This is in contradiction with many experiments, for example the double slit, in which particles do arrive, after some delay. Check out doi.org/10.1063/1.523304 which shows that under that hypothesis there is no arrival. | |
| Oct 19, 2020 at 20:02 | answer | added | don't train ai on me | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 18, 2020 at 3:28 | comment | added | benrg | @lucky-guess I added a response to your comment to my answer. | |
| Oct 18, 2020 at 0:20 | comment | added | user86425 | how is that every moment it doesn't click affects the wavefunction? the wavefunction evolves as per schrodingers equation which has nothing to do with the apparatus | |
| Oct 17, 2020 at 23:01 | comment | added | knzhou | @lucky-guess So I think you need to spell out in more detail what your philosophical objection is. For example, if somebody presented you a derivation containing concrete, standard equations that backed up benrg's answer, would that be satisfying to you, or would you double down and say that the equations of quantum mechanics must be wrong? | |
| Oct 17, 2020 at 22:59 | comment | added | knzhou | @lucky-guess But the detector is constantly making measurements. Every moment that it doesn't click causes a partial collapse of the wavefunction. Not only is this not in question, it is standard material without which many experimental results can't be explained. You can find it in textbooks about atomic and optical physics. | |
| Oct 17, 2020 at 19:36 | comment | added | knzhou | The answer by benrg is perfectly correct. If you want to avoid wasting the reputation you spent on the bounty, you should explain why you think it's wrong! | |
| S Oct 17, 2020 at 17:05 | history | bounty started | CommunityBot | ||
| S Oct 17, 2020 at 17:05 | history | notice added | user86425 | Authoritative reference needed | |
| S Sep 24, 2020 at 17:02 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Sep 24, 2020 at 17:02 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Sep 16, 2020 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1306291778262372353 | ||
| S Sep 16, 2020 at 15:26 | history | bounty started | CommunityBot | ||
| S Sep 16, 2020 at 15:26 | history | notice added | user86425 | Draw attention | |
| Sep 4, 2020 at 19:21 | answer | added | probably_someone | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 4, 2020 at 19:11 | answer | added | benrg | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 4, 2020 at 17:45 | comment | added | probably_someone | @BioPhysicist Yes, that much is true, and will be the substance of the answer I'm writing. | |
| Sep 4, 2020 at 17:44 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | @probably_someone But you can still attach a time to what one means by collapse, even if it isn't physical itself. | |
| Sep 4, 2020 at 17:33 | comment | added | probably_someone | Note: "wavefunction collapse" is not necessarily an actual physical phenomenon. It's an interpretation of what happens during a measurement, one which conceals the actual fine-scale details of the interaction. There are ways to interpret quantum mechanics that don't have the wavefunction instantaneously "collapsing" in this way (for example, decoherence-based interpretations), and there are also experimentally-demonstrated "weak measurements" that don't cause "collapse" in the sense you mean here. | |
| Sep 4, 2020 at 17:19 | history | edited | user86425 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 129 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2020 at 17:00 | history | edited | user86425 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 152 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2020 at 16:52 | history | edited | user86425 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 882 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2020 at 16:51 | history | edited | user86425 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 882 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2020 at 16:43 | history | asked | user86425 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |