![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackTo expand on the point in the previous post, is it right that electrons bend round corners, like sound etc? Aka diffraction? This is how electron microscopes work, right?
That means that a probability wave is an actual thing, right, not a description of a particle? Does it?
But if so, how can anyone cling to the idea that they're a particle with a particular position. Particles don't do that. Do they?
And yet, there's massive amounts of effort to come up with interpretations of quantum mechanics that retain the "in a particular position" idea. Or the idea of hidden variable theory seems to be that the electron is in multiple places at once, but when you finally measure it, it was predetermined what value you were going to find[1]. If you've *already accepted* the multiple-places-at-once thing, AND the wave-physically-exists thing, what do you gain by assuming it then suddenly stops doing that at some unspecified point?
[1] "Predetermined" to avoid the "spooky action at a distance" problem, of, if you have a probability wave describing *two* particles (say, emitted in opposite directions with opposite spin), and measure them waaaaaaay far apart, how do they "know" what value to take to ensure they end up opposite, when there's no way for a signal to travel between them. Leaving aside the absurdity of a "hey, collapse this way" message even if it were slower than light.
That means that a probability wave is an actual thing, right, not a description of a particle? Does it?
But if so, how can anyone cling to the idea that they're a particle with a particular position. Particles don't do that. Do they?
And yet, there's massive amounts of effort to come up with interpretations of quantum mechanics that retain the "in a particular position" idea. Or the idea of hidden variable theory seems to be that the electron is in multiple places at once, but when you finally measure it, it was predetermined what value you were going to find[1]. If you've *already accepted* the multiple-places-at-once thing, AND the wave-physically-exists thing, what do you gain by assuming it then suddenly stops doing that at some unspecified point?
[1] "Predetermined" to avoid the "spooky action at a distance" problem, of, if you have a probability wave describing *two* particles (say, emitted in opposite directions with opposite spin), and measure them waaaaaaay far apart, how do they "know" what value to take to ensure they end up opposite, when there's no way for a signal to travel between them. Leaving aside the absurdity of a "hey, collapse this way" message even if it were slower than light.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 10:31 pm (UTC)I've previously read the Less Wrong sequence on quantum, and maybe some other lecture series or popular explanations, I don't completely remember.
I'm open to other suggestions if there's anything likely to be helpful? People have suggested some other lecture courses with notes online, but I've also found that bad explanations confuse me really badly, so I'm cautious about reading things if I'm not fairly sure I want to read the whole thing and it will be helpful.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-26 05:03 pm (UTC)Scott Aaronson is a good writer, but his approach is going to be heavily influenced by his computing background, and the sorts of things Quantum Computing needs to know about are or can be approached significantly differently than an approach that starts with classical physics. I'd strongly recommend a highly mathematical approach, because that works with the knowledge you already have, rather than trying to work off a less familiar physics background, at exactly the point that classical physics goes 'well fuck me this is all a bit weird then'.