| 1 |
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 12:06:30PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote |
| 2 |
> On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly |
| 5 |
> > non-deterministic |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how |
| 8 |
> the domain of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of |
| 9 |
> deterministic behaviour. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Example... "Young's double slit experiment" |
| 12 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment The classical wave |
| 13 |
explanation gives the characteristic interference fringes as per... |
| 14 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Classical_wave-optics_formulation |
| 15 |
Quantum mechanics gives the same output, but uses an extremely ugly |
| 16 |
probability equation the get the result. So what happens when you have |
| 17 |
an extremely weak light source such that only one photon is present in |
| 18 |
the device at any time? Surely it won't have anything to interfere with |
| 19 |
and cause a diffraction pattern? Wrong. The exact same interference |
| 20 |
fringe pattern shows up, although it obviously takes longer for the |
| 21 |
photographic film to expose. This effect even works when sending |
| 22 |
electrons 1-at-a-time through a double slit filter (Taylor's Experiment) |
| 23 |
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/QuantumMechanics.html |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 27 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives