Quantum Physics in the macro-world, molecules behave like waves in double split experiment ~ We are

One of the most famous experiments in quantum physics, which first showed how particles can bizarrely behave like waves, has now been carried out on the largest molecules ever. Researchers have sent molecules containing either 58 or 114 atoms through the so-called "double-slit experiment," showing that they cause an interference pattern that can only be explained if the particles act like waves of water, rather than tiny marbles.

- LINK

This is an amazing discovery, that it is not just in the micro world of photons that there is a split form of wave and particle, but even MOLECULES cause an interference pattern. This is proving that it is on a higher level than we suspected...

In another experiment that even used quantum entanglement on DIAMONDS.

Obviously this quantum physics is not just on a micro level but on a MACRO level, so everyone is all connected as one in the quantum field.

reply to post by arpgme


A particle can be a wave ,but is still a particle in time .

reply to post by madjetxe


Or rather, a particle IS a wave, until it is observed and then behaves like a particle. The Observer cannot be ignored.

if the information to is available to know it's relative position it materializes into a particle. if the information isn't available it is like a wave of potential possibilities. i think reality is a simulation

reply to post by arpgme


This is part answer to excellerating our atoms,protons.electrons past light speed and into time space.

reply to post by biggmoneyme



Is it sort of like this or am I misunderstanding something:

A person is walking left and right, a person takes picture of them. They are still walking left and right but the picture shows the person in one state of being?

If so, then I don't think it is potential, rather it is just moving, and when they measure it, it is just like taking a picture of it.

or no?

reply to post by arpgme

no, it isn't like that.

if the wave function hasn't collapsed (nothing is attempting to measure the position of the photon), then it's in a superposition of states. all of the potentials that the photon has interfere with each other and produce an interference pattern that is seen in waves.

this is a good video, albeit cartoonish:

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Woah, but if even the macro world incorporates quantum physics (molecules, diamonds) then that means that all of us should be in super-position, even ourselves... Or is it because we are self aware that we are not?

So if I am in one room and no one is observing the other, it is in super position, right? What determines in what way the actual position will be? Why my room always look the same when I look at it?

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

Woah, but if even the macro world incorporates quantum physics (molecules, diamonds) then that means that all of us should be in super-position, even ourselves... Or is it because we are self aware that we are not?

So if I am in one room and no one is observing the other, it is in super position, right? What determines in what way the actual position will be? Why my room always look the same when I look at it?

famous physicist richard feynman once said "i think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics" i'm going to use another quote that illustrates the point of the seemingly unpredictable quantum world.

One does not get an answer to the question, 'What is the state after collision?' but only to the question, 'How probable is a given effect of the collision?' From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics, there is no quantity which causally fixes the effect of a collision in an individual event. Should we hope to discover such properties later ... and determine [them] in individual events? ... I myself am inclined to renounce determinism in the atomic world, but that is a philosophical question for which physical arguments alone do not set standards.

en.wikiquote.org...

that was max born. he's essentially saying that we rely on intuition in the macro world, but such things don't exist in quantum mechanics. if you drop a bowl, you expect it to shatter. in quantum mechanics, you collide two particles, and the result cannot be known before, but can be described in terms of probability. it's like dropping the bowl one day makes it shatter into diamonds, and another day makes it turn into light and heat that dissipates.

quantum mechanics is by no means complete, and i tend to support einstein's position that it is useful, though incomplete. it lacks an underlying unity that we are not yet aware of.

The dual particle-wave nature of all material has been largely supported by existing models. The issue has been experimentally verifying the principles and pulling something useful out of them.

Although this does give more hints to a unified field theory. The issue that has plagued a unified theory has been the merger of macroscopic events with sub-atomic mechanics. Experiments such as this seem to indicate that deterministic phenomena are emergent from the probabilistic nature of subatomic phenomena.

Sages, Gurus, Mystics...
Gnostics, Sufis, Kabbalists, Buddhists, New Agers...

Throughout the ages wise men have been stating the self-evident truth of this interconnected reality of One, lacking any separate self.

Peace.

reply to post by Aim64C

that's the base that quantum mechanics has built off of, and it doesn't seem solid to me. inherently random probabilities creating deterministic phenomena? there's something missing...

i think it's more likely that the particle-wave view is incorrect, yet in a subtle way so that at a distance it appears correct, but as we move closer to the truth, the real shape of things will emerge. a string far away looks one dimensional, but as you get closer you're able to see that it has a second and then a third dimension.

reply to post by Skada

This is addressed by Dave Nelson in the comments list. Observation is not what causes the wave function to collapse, but decoherence from outside interference. He also states that macroscopic objects also experience decoherence, but it's so fast that we can't observe it.

This is what wiki says:
en.wikipedia.org...

...
Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary.
...

And I thought this was interesting:

Decoherence represents a challenge for the practical realization of quantum computers, since they are expected to rely heavily on the undisturbed evolution of quantum coherences. Simply put; they require that coherent states be preserved and that decoherence is managed, in order to actually perform quantum computation.

I'm not sure about this, but I wonder if this experiment referred to in this thread might imply that coherence is at a scale higher than previously thought? Might this be a good thing for quantum computing?

reply to post by jonnywhite


"This is addressed by Dave Nelson in the comments list. Observation is not what causes the wave function to collapse, but decoherence from outside interference"

So, in order to measure something, we have to shoot a beam of light, or electrons, at it. this is the outside interference that causes the object to be measure to collapse?

Is that the gist of what you are saying?

Everything is everything just on a different scale.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

"This is addressed by Dave Nelson in the comments list. Observation is not what causes the wave function to collapse, but decoherence from outside interference"

So, in order to measure something, we have to shoot a beam of light, or electrons, at it. this is the outside interference that causes the object to be measure to collapse?

Is that the gist of what you are saying?

I would very much like to know this as well.

Always seemed off, the "observer creates reality" pseudo-science garble.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

"This is addressed by Dave Nelson in the comments list. Observation is not what causes the wave function to collapse, but decoherence from outside interference"

So, in order to measure something, we have to shoot a beam of light, or electrons, at it. this is the outside interference that causes the object to be measure to collapse?

Is that the gist of what you are saying?

I would very much like to know this as well.

Always seemed off, the "observer creates reality" pseudo-science garble.

Observational instruments may create interference but so does your presence. So, it's not garble; it is still science to postulate on "observer creates reality" arguments.