Skip to main content
Physics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • $\begingroup$ Quanta don't have positions and they don't have velocities. I do not understand what you are trying to do here. The entire argument doesn't match any physically workable definition of quantum that I have ever seen. $\endgroup$
    – FlatterMann
    Commented Jan 19 at 10:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @FlatterMann This is an approximation. As written above, x coordinate is treated classically while y by quantum. mechanics. It's not my idea, see the reference given. I note that this kind of notion of conditional probability isn't clear to me, but it works here. $\endgroup$
    – mma
    Commented Jan 19 at 11:23
  • $\begingroup$ There is no approximation in which quanta have position and velocity. Moreover, the double slit is not even a good example for quantum mechanics. It's no even a unitary process. $\endgroup$
    – FlatterMann
    Commented Jan 19 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ x coordinate is classical. No quanta. Only y coordinate is quanta. It has a probability distribution in a given state. $\endgroup$
    – mma
    Commented Jan 19 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ Classical corpuscles don't have diffraction functions. Only quanta of energy have those... but quanta don't have location. A single quantum doesn't have a probability distribution and a state, either. Only the quantum mechanical ensemble has those. It seems to me that there is something rather strange going on in this argument that mixes concepts that are completely unrelated. $\endgroup$
    – FlatterMann
    Commented Jan 19 at 11:58