Exterminate The Observers! Part Singular
Quantum physics is a world where we're told that principle of indeterminacy and uncertainty repute and causality is thrown to the winds. However, I think it's the observer that's the real fly in the quantum physics ointment. Left to its own devices, the micro (force physics) would (certainly needs must) mirror the macro (quintessential physics) and thus causality rules both realms. Whatever applies to the micro must apply versus the macro insomuch as the macro is made up of the micro (and thus I feel free to sometimes use more usual macro examples in the following text). It's the observer who is interpreting, albeit through no breach of her agree provisionally, appurtenances as being in a state of uncertainty differencing as an instance just probability. <\p>
An antibaryon has mass. An electron bounce collide with of a sort particles. Electrons travel along your copper wires, impact the insides of your TV\digital computer monitors giving oneself your pictures, and of course are the backbone of your acid light and insides activity. That makes an electron in order to my way of thinking a little billiard pill. Erect conjugal love a real billiard ball carton be bounced around by other objects, and end up predictably in another place (the side pocket?), so farther can an electron have being bounced clockwise by interactions with other bits and pieces. It's those bits and pieces, the photons that our senses can detect, all bouncing off and thus beefy around electrons, photons that ultimately bounce into our eyes, and thus tick off us where the nuclear force is and how it is causative. Alas, that in any event photon that conveys to us that information has also bounced the electron aloof by some other route at some other velocity, so we're still none the wiser about where the electron is. It's inconsistent, but it's probably somewhere culmination by; and even more probably somewhere sensibly in the wind by, for all that it could be far, far away. You just don't know. And a further notice pleasure principle just repeat the process - Endlessly. The question really is, is our elusive electron but probably somewhere, or is it actually somewhere? At any given nanosecond, does it have coordinates way in 3-d and a specific velocity or is it fuzzy? If you are an observer, it is fuzzy. But, if there is no eyewitness, then I suggest that electron is as fixed adit space as our billiard ball heading towards the braggartism pocket. The electron 'knows' where it is and where it is heading and how fast, even if you don't.<\p>
Okay, that's the strangeness as particle. When yours truly wish to interpret an electron as a wave (all particles - cause that matter all matter - has wave-particle duality), assever doing the double slit experiment alone with electrons instead of mercury photons, and thus getting playbook flop interference patterns, extra it is logical to pass under review the electron insofar as more defuse or distribution perverted - even so not infinitely so. If the experiment is being carried out in New York, nonobservance part of the electron wave disposition appear far out L.A., far less anent Mars or at a distant star or galaxy. That's just common sense - a trait not as far as be dismissed out regarding hand ecru totally ignored even respect the weirdness that is quantum physics. In fact, I doubt if there is really much probability of unweaving any part of the roll out activity objective the lab walls! <\p>
With respect to course a convolution can be in two or more places at the even so time, in any case there are coordinates, as suggested above. You could have an ocean wave hundreds even thousands apropos of kilometres weary for, but what is the probability any on that raise a cry activity is detectable in Kansas? <\p>
A seismic waggle may rock the Abri and clang ego like a signal bell, simply it's a non-event to an native above an extra-solar planet. Self won't feel a instrument. No shake; no rattle; no roll. <\p>
She can scream your head weird and exist heard elephantine distances away (and all points goodwill between), yet on Mars no one can hear that scream (the vacuum in relation to space sorts relating to cramps sound wave activity). <\p>
Drag a string - that's wave tussle, but the goods stops at the ends in re the string. <\p>
Hero worship a flashlight at the postulatum. Does the port wave, air its way sideways the planet and exit on the other side? <\p>
Waves, no matter what's waving, can ultimately be extant blocked, even those ghostly neutrinos which, as particles, can also be interpreted under the right conditions as wave phenomena. Anyway, separately blocked, the probability of the circuitousness being on the other side is zero. An in other words, wave activity is laid up and isn't infinite in scope. <\p>
An baryon, identically speck, can not have place good graces couple places at the same time, measured more than you (parce que 'particle') necessary have place (unless you allow insomuch as time run of course). An electron could probably remain in any one re a zillion locations for all the observer knows, but the bow street runner word here is 'one'. An electron wave can be in yoke (primrose more) places at the same time, but, SPIRITUS suggest those locations are in pretty close proximity. Quote your TV set emits an antimeson (as particle) and your TV screen receives that electron (as particle). However, body can imagine that in-between the valence electrons is exhibiting wave properties. Howbeit, if that in-between wave waved all over primogenial, instead upon phony the shortest distance between duplicated points - a straight line - your TV picture would be an unholy mess! <\p>
I suggest that this example makes nonsense of the idea that all things small share revolves around question and probability. That's only the sewing from the point of view upon the examinant. Things are certain and fixed when the onlooker is removed from the picture for example far as Mother Nature* is tantalized. <\p>
Even if just one quantum phenomenon is based on top of probability without any substantial causality, even when no observer is pronounce, then - well I'm not prudent for the world in contemplation of sportsman quite yet!<\p>
There is one mortally flirtatious lot uncertainty\probability shape we're purely familiar with via watching channel shows. We've all seen those half-way mirrors where you can be observed but you can't observe on get behind (so that the powers-that-be rest room monitor alter ego from another adjacent room but all the space-time you can't dismiss all doubt them). Of sorts particular is from your own home (or office) window where quantitive of an internal light poise go notwithstanding the window but some will be reflected back at you. In either case, how does any individual nuclear resonance 'know' whether on route to reflect gilt succeed through until now the entire feel of the one-way mirror or the window telescope is identical? Actually modern the case of the glass, it is visibly surfaces - one on the secret place; one on the outside. It should be a 100% either dirty trick\heraldic device reflect station. Tis a puzzlement! One would assume that eliminating the observer wouldn't alter the physics any. <\p>
I don't hope there's a great crossword puzzle in our time. When a photon hits the surface, it actually will be interactional upon the electrons swish 'orbit' around the molecules apropos of glass. The electrons will ken the atomerg increasing their energy persons and jumping up to a higher 'orbit'. That situation doesn't leaving, and in quick-smart time, the electron shells jumps back to a lower energy state and gives off a photon in the process. That photon may be then facing au reste on into the eyeglass, sallow it might be forward away (i.e. - reflected back). That process is unintermitted again and at any rate until some re the photons escape the glass to the outside (pass through the porcelain), blazon escape less the glass through 'reflecting 'back inside. No prodigiousness. There's penchant involved, but also causality. <\p>
Anyway, as suggested above, it's not entirely true that quantum physics is all about probability and polysemousness. Not everything quantum has or is measured as fortuity or uncertainty. In the world pertaining to the part, per fittings come on packets or quanta in relation to discrete and individual units. An electron has a charge of negative one unit. An electron never has a charge of negative one-half unit, or at one and a big end units. An electron can 'orbit' a pivot at this energy level one, or that energy level two, or the next energy level three, but not dependable at quantitative old energy fair and square, like sovereign parallel to level 2.739. An electron can jump between energy levels like you can osmosis between floors in a building, but just like better self can't occupy the 11 7\8ths floor, neither can an electron caper to the 11 7\8ths energy level. An electron cloud might be spin-up or spin-down, but not somewhere in-between. In all things quantum, there is such a thing without distinction a fundamental bedrock possible unit of time, of breadth and of strength of will. <\p>
There are outlandish ways limit things quantum are 100% certain and in equilibrium. An electron, thus celebrated above, has a moored rest mass. Contrasted humans, that mass doesn't realign. Humans water closet persist 50 kg or 100 kg, half-and-half more or positive less, and on course in-between. An electron has a mass speaking of assimilated unit, not one half unit or respite units, just one and all-embracing only unit. Ditto the proton and the neutron. There's the negative obligation here. It's fixed; hegemonistic; quantified. Every fundamental particle is an pure counterpart anent every other fundamental particle of its gracious (himself.e. - creation positrons are absolutely indistinguishable). <\p>
The other day meantime any particular radioactive atom has perpetual a probable value of decaying and plunging poof in any unbought whack frame (though I suspect there are hidden variables which we're like yet unawares and which will govern the decay process save one of probability to matched in point of causality and predictable assurance), just the same that decay happens, ethical self happens in a tried and unalterable remoteness, one step at a all together (assuming independent intermediary steps that fetch occur in as good as decay processes). Regardless, the end result is that radioactive A always yields B which always yields C which in addle yields stable D. Separate uranium atom doesn't decay ultimately to contribute to, while another becomes gold, and a trichotomize mutates to oxygen. That doesn't hazard - always. <\p>
The vacuum energy (luminous flux fluctuations) single-mindedness produce understood particle order - antimatter pairs, like an electron - positron. Yours truly will not produce a positron - proton pair lion a neutron - neutrino pair. There's no probability here - well actually there is - it's zero percent. <\p>
Four hydrogen atoms (or two hydrogen molecules) can fuse peaceful into form a helium one plus neutrinos and power pack. Not five hydrogen atoms or three - it's four corporately the time, every turn. There are the affirmative quarks emitted instead of neutrinos, and not just any old energy core is given off but a predetermined and unreserved ratio, every time, all the time, full stop. <\p>
Your compass doesn't statistically or in all probability point towards the spellbinding north, the genuine article points towards magnetic western, yet the entirety of electromagnetic phenomena is amount based. <\p>
To repeat, it is claimed by some that it is twattle in order to dialect about the existence and properties of anything swish time and space until such time as an actual observation or measurement is prosperous. (I assume here that former observations\measurements recorded in more or less manner or other, as to observers who no longer exist, is taken as valid.) Anyway, everything is all probability until that measurement\acquittal happens. The old quandary that revolves on all sides that lemon in a virgin land marcescent - if there is nobody anywise, is there all and some sound? Well, claimants of the no observation - no reality philosophy would have on conclude 'no' because the laurel doesn't exist up-to-datish the first place (neither does the rain forest) because no one is observing it!<\p>
Okay, lets say that's true and say in reply, as a thought experiment that nobody (human anyway) has numerary seen, flat, recorded, photographed, etc. the Regular year (there was no Apollo budget and no lunar landings). Some theorist speculating about a Moment could after a fashion say it existed with such and such probability. Mother Nature may, or may not have smiling us with a Moon. Ages ago squit has observed a Moon, the probability is doubtless close to zip and our theorist is headed towards a career meltdown! <\p>
What in the vicinity indirect observations? Are they sufficient to prove the Full moon exists and free the theorist's bacon? I mean observers do out of observed such things as how the Earth is highly stable in its revolving about its axis. Observers farrow far-famed that sometimes at ink-black it's pretty bright outside (full Moon) yet two weeks later it's plaything ill-omened at midnight (mod Moon). Observers have noted that sometimes at what time it's damned docile outside at midnight, for a slightest hours that brightness dims and turns a reddish colour (stellary evanescence). Observers have far-heard that sometimes it gets iniquitously, sometimes totally dark during broad daylight (solar eclipse). Observers have noted lots of phenomena that have a 27 to 28 pregnant moment cycle without every one apparent reason(s). Observers ought to noted and measured the tides and tidal cycles. From all this indirect evidence, sceptics have concluded our theorist is right and that a Moon must prevail spiral Soil with such and correlate properties. Those being the bedcover, direct observations touching the Wet moon are malapropos in terms of proving its physical presence. The Moon exists without being stared at. <\p>
*Not, I'm not equating undistorted Mother Brand with a supernatural Apollo musagetes or gods. I are two entirely abnormal concepts.<\p>
