Timeline for Can the Aharonov-Bohm experiment also be described by conditional probablilties, like the simple double slit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3 at 6:17 | comment | added | knzhou | This looks like an extraordinarily complicated way to write something very simple. Sure, one can always inflate the size of notation as much as desired, but why? | |
| Feb 3 at 6:07 | history | edited | mma | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jan 21 at 8:40 | history | edited | mma | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 237 characters in body
|
| Jan 21 at 8:15 | history | edited | mma | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 237 characters in body
|
| Jan 19 at 13:16 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
res. recom. qs can usually not be mixed wth an actual physics q
|
|
| Jan 19 at 13:14 | history | edited | Quillo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
link to the book and typo correction
|
| Jan 19 at 13:04 | history | edited | mma | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 19 at 12:07 | comment | added | mma | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jan 19 at 12:03 | comment | added | FlatterMann | Let's take this to chat, if you want to. Technically the double slit is not even quantum mechanics. Planck's constant is not in it and we aren't analyzing multi-quantum correlations like in the case of entanglement experiments, either. The double slit diffraction function is perfectly classical. Young had an explanation for it in 1801, a hundred years before quantum mechanics was even conceived of. And like I said, the scattering of a real double slit is not even unitary, i.e. the formalism doesn't even apply to it without ad-hoc modifications. | |
| Jan 19 at 12:00 | comment | added | mma | In my opinion, double slit is the simplest example in quantum mechanics. And yes, it is a unitary process. This process is responsible for spreading the probability after the slits from the slits to the whole y axis. | |
| Jan 19 at 11:58 | comment | added | FlatterMann | 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. | |
| Jan 19 at 11:54 | comment | added | mma | x coordinate is classical. No quanta. Only y coordinate is quanta. It has a probability distribution in a given state. | |
| Jan 19 at 11:52 | comment | added | FlatterMann | 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. | |
| Jan 19 at 11:23 | comment | added | mma | @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. | |
| Jan 19 at 10:47 | comment | added | FlatterMann | 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. | |
| Jan 19 at 6:26 | history | asked | mma | CC BY-SA 4.0 |