Wave function of macroscopic objects
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "climate establishment does not follow the scientific method" - INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
Next: BP warns of long effort to cap spill ... INDEED WHY NOT WASTE MORE TIME MUCKING AROUND
From: Tailor on 10 Jun 2010 20:05 Do they still exist or no longer after the wave function collapses in macroscopic objects?
From: spudnik on 10 Jun 2010 20:16 Schroedinger's cat is dead; long-live Schroedinger's cat! thus&so: I tried the 3D glasses, the other day, and it was really weird, *without* closing one eye in the mirror; makes one's eye's look flat & glassy. (I assumed, UA wasn't using the red & blue kind.) thus&so: how does the "gravity swing" differ essentially from the radiometer, if both are just pendula? how does merely asserting the error of Lorent's contraction, which seems quite reasonable to those of us, who believe that atoms have angular momentum, mean that you have disproven special relativity? > I don't see how e = hf applies where there may be no atomic absorption. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Dear Rep. Lee (http://centeroncongress.org): Californians are at fault, probably being User #1 of Gulf oil & gas via pipelines ... all because of spill off of Santa Barbara in '68. Now, A.G. Brown is determined not to drill, at all. (Also, the offloading facilities in the Delta must have contributed greatly to the problems with Katrina.) Look; oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure. Perhaps it was a Natl.Geo. article on offshore driiling, showed that approx. one XXValdez/year seeps (organically) from the bottom of the Gulf -- while "we" are pumping like crazy. British P. is the #1 operator in the Gulf and Alaska; maybe, their USA ops should be nationalized. The WSUrinal often likens Waxman's bill to "cap&tax," but as far as I know (and as Rep. Waxman seemed to admit, in our brief conversation) it is just "let the arbitrageurs and daytrippers make as much money on our energy, as they can." An expert on emmissions at a UCLA forum agreed that a small carbon tax would achieve the same ends, but that "that is politically impossible." The Urinal also noted-in-passing that a tax would work, but that was in a guest editorial, promoting cap&trade ... the same as the Kyoto Protocol, which Dubya'd have signed, if he knew that it was just "free trade, free beer & freedom in the free market." And, it is the same as Waxman's '91 cap&trade bill on NOX and SO2, viz acid rain. So, how did it go, then, and who made the money? --Sincerely, Brian Hutchings
From: Uncle Al on 10 Jun 2010 20:55 Tailor wrote: > > Do they still exist or no longer after the wave function collapses in > macroscopic objects? Correspondence Principle. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Jun 2010 23:33 On 6/10/10 7:05 PM, Tailor wrote: > > Do they still exist or no longer after the wave function collapses in > macroscopic objects? Can you clarify your question? Wave function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function "A wave function or wavefunction is a mathematical tool used in quantum mechanics to describe the momentary states of subatomic particles". "It is a function from a space that maps the possible states of the system into the complex numbers. The laws of quantum mechanics (the Schrödinger equation) describe how the wave function evolves over time. The values of the wave function are probability amplitudes — complex numbers — the squares of the absolute values of which give the probability distribution that the system will be in any of the possible states". "It is commonly applied as a property of particles relating to their wave-particle duality, where it is denoted ψ(position,time) and where | ψ | 2 is equal to the chance of finding the subject at a certain time and position.[1] For example, in an atom with a single electron, such as hydrogen or ionized helium, the wave function of the electron provides a complete description of how the electron behaves. It can be decomposed into a series of atomic orbitals which form a basis for the possible wave functions. For atoms with more than one electron (or any system with multiple particles), the underlying space is the possible configurations of all the electrons and the wave function describes the probabilities of those configurations".
From: Benj on 11 Jun 2010 01:47
On Jun 10, 8:05 pm, Tailor <tailor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Do they still exist or no longer after the wave function collapses in > macroscopic objects? Obviously macroscopic objects such as bowling balls, the moon, handguns, etc. all exist as wave functions provided nobody looks at them. Once someone looks at them or attempts some kind of measurement the wave functions collapse and a single probable state occurs. Since one of the probably states has been chosen, the others represented by the wave function are gone. It's really pretty simple physics that has been established beyond any question no matter what the few quantum deniers say! But of course if everyone STOPS looking at the moon, then a NEW wave function occurs. One which has likely been modified by the state of the last collapsed wave function. This new wave function most likely collapses into a DIFFERENT final state than the previous wave function did. Which is to say once someone looks at the object. Hence there is a constant evolution of macroscopic object so long as people keep looking at it or trying to measure it. Pretty simple, eh? |