See post #88.
Hawking suggested that a black hole could have an “apparent horizon” rather than an event horizon. Information is only temporarily confined behind that horizon. The information eventually escapes, but in such a scrambled form that it can never be interpreted - a bit like this thread!
Fun Fact: What is the lifetime of a black hole?
Even though a black hole gives off radiation, it would take around around 10 to the power 100 years for the most massive black holes in the universe to evaporate.
That is longer than the age of the universe itself, which is estimated at around 14 billion years (14 times 10 to the power 9 years).
No, I can't contemplate that either!
How do Black Holes evaporate? - Starts With A Bang! - Medium
Even though a black hole gives off radiation, it would take around around 10 to the power 100 years for the most massive black holes in the universe to evaporate.
That is longer than the age of the universe itself, which is estimated at around 14 billion years (14 times 10 to the power 9 years).
No, I can't contemplate that either!
How do Black Holes evaporate? - Starts With A Bang! - Medium
Yes, it can. A server cluster failure and an irrecoverable backup failure can destroy all information in these fora.Can information escape from this thread?
No problem, most will rebuild, as the information in these forums is an ever lasting rehash.
The demonstrated logic is logically unlogic, being imaginary by nature.
Our perception of time, and matter and dimension, is not 'the real thing'. It is only our perception, simplified by our senses and braincapacity. It is thus not the reality, whether imaginary or real. Both are not what they appear to us.
In a setup with a electroncannon, a metal plate with two small slots and a positive 'catchplate' the electrons can only through one of the slots. One might expect two 'landingzones' on the catchplate, but there appears a interference pattern, which happens when lots of electrons interfere with eachother during firing the electronbeam.
But if the slots are set apart from each other, say a few meters, or on either side of the earth, or a lightyear distance, and only one electron is fired at the time, and the next century the next electron, the same interference pattern is created.
Do electrons 'know' another will interfere in time? Do they have a memory or predicting ability?
None. We see that metal plate with two slots. For electrons, other rules apply. They don't experience our metal plate as a metal plate, but as a 'patternforcing' probability.
Real electrons travel through our imaginary space. No problem at all and absolutely logical. We just can not wrap our minds around it, really.
Last edited:
Electrons certainly have a wavelength as Louis de Broglie proposed as far back as 1924.
The double slit experiment was first performed using electrons in 1961 when they were found to exhibit wave-particle duality in the same way as photons of light.
In 2012, physicists conducted the experiment usng molecules containing over 100 atoms.
The fact of the matter is that all matter has an associated wavelength. The more massive the object and the faster it is moving, the shorter its wavelength.
A person of mass 75 kg running at 8 km/h has a very small wavelength of 4.016×10-36 m which is about 700 billion, billion times smaller than the classical electron radius - no, I can't get my head round that either!
Attachments
I take this as an attempt at trying to impress...MarsBravo said:
Please, inform the forum, what you are using instead of these imprecise organs.
This is NOT what reputable books about Physics teach. Electrons interfering with each other?! This is new to Physics!
This contradicts what you wrote in the previous paragraph.
This is NOT the right question to ask as it pre-assumes electrons possess processing power. Electrons have physical properties and obey the laws of Physics.
That problem is similar to extrapolation, which is known to help in many cases, but it can also fail spectacularly in novice situations.
Real electrons can be understood, just like any other scientific topic. After all, that is the purpose of scientific research.
The key to understand the 'surprising' behaviour of the very small, is to understand the Principle of Duality of Matter.
Even if we fire a single electron at the double slit at a time, we get a very slow accumulation of electrons at the detectors which ultimately produces an interference pattern.
The mystery is, how can a single electron 'interfere with itself', without going through both slits?
As it approaches the double slits, the position of the electron is unknown and it may be regarded as a quantum wave which can pass through both slits.
The quantum wave carries information on where the electron may be found when we perform the act of detecting it at the screen.
Therefore, electrons do not interfere with each other, what goes through both slits and interferes with itself is information!
You can call anything information. This does not explain anything about the duality of electrons or matter. The error is the assumption of knowing both the momentum and position of electrons with absolute accuracy: the Hysenberg Uncertainty Principle excludes this.
No mystery exists. Subatomic particles do not behave like classical particles but have a fuzzy nature. This is the real explanation of what goes on with electrons when they encounter two or more slits. The error is treating electrons like classical particles.
Yes, it is a pertinent question, but it is also the wrong question to ask. The nature of matter at the very small is dual; there is no need to argue anything about that. This is the same as trying to argue about why certain quarks give rise to charge properties. It is their nature, fullstop.
No mystery exists. Subatomic particles do not behave like classical particles but have a fuzzy nature. This is the real explanation of what goes on with electrons when they encounter two or more slits. The error is treating electrons like classical particles.
Yes, it is a pertinent question, but it is also the wrong question to ask. The nature of matter at the very small is dual; there is no need to argue anything about that. This is the same as trying to argue about why certain quarks give rise to charge properties. It is their nature, fullstop.
Absolutely correct! I sought to dispel the mystery in my post, not claim that it exists. I also sought to explain that electrons cannot be regarded as classical particles.
If anyone wishes to research further, then look into quantum mechanics and Erwin Schrödinger’s famous wave equation, a solution to which is called the wave function. The information carried by the wave function determines the probability of finding an electron at a particular position.
We have no idea what the exact position of an electron is until we detect it. In that respect an electron is more wavelike than particle-like.
When the electron is detected at the screen the wave function collapses and the probability of the position of the electron becomes a certainty.
Of course the idea of the wave function in quantum mechanics and its collapse during a measurement remains a controversial subject.
Your post has made me crack up, but I hope I'm not the butt of your question!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.