/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13196312

485KiB, 750x654, dumby.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

How does gravity work in small scales?

Anonymous Thu 27 May 11:01:36 2021 No.13196312 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13196337 >>13198514 >>13201167

If particles don't have a definite position then where does gravity attract all the other particles to exactly?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 May 2021 11:17:36 No.13196337 Report

Quoted By: >>13198514 >>13200390

>>13196312
The wave function over a space (such as IRL) tells you the probability of finding a particle at a location in that space.
The wave function changes with time, under the force of gravity the regions of high probability move downwards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 May 2021 20:50:54 No.13198514 Report

Quoted By: >>13200390

>>13196312
Roughly speaking, the expected position of the particle. This is because even in quantum field theory, when we speak of particles, we have small variance around their expected position. In general, every single field couples to the invariant 4 volume metric, so I guess if you wanted you could find the gravitational potential and use that in the Schrödinger equation to find how the probability distribution evolves in the presence of gravity like this guy says >>13196337

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1622143477338.jpg, 33KiB, 499x609

Anonymous Thu 27 May 2021 20:51:55 No.13198519 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 May 2021 06:10:33 No.13200390 Report

Quoted By: >>13200413

>>13196337
>>13198514
Does that mean that the particle has an actual position at all times and it's just us that can't know it at that time? Maybe I'm getting mixed up and it being a described as wave sometimes is just mathematics and not physical?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 May 2021 06:19:46 No.13200413 Report

Quoted By: >>13200860

>>13200390
No. The particle does not have an "actual position" that we can't measure in standard QM, or in any non-hidden variables interpretation. The particle is just an excitation of a field that is sonewhat localized (not fully localized because that'd break the uncertainty principle).

Also, imposing a distinction between "mathematical" and "physical" at this level is misguided: what does physical mean? Experiment is fully compatible with the description of particles as waves. That sounds pretty physical to me. The only reason to call it "mathematical" is because it's unintuitive, and that's a pretty bad reason when talking about anything quantum.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 97E9426A-4197-4356-B1CB-159A82D8 (...).jpg, 137KiB, 1024x482

Anonymous Fri 28 May 2021 08:26:32 No.13200783 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 May 2021 08:54:51 No.13200860 Report

Quoted By:

>>13200413
So if the particle has it's own gravitational field, is it in fact a superposition of possible gravitational fields that "collapses" to a specific one or is the gravitational field induced by the particle also a fuzzy quantum distribution that can self-interfere?

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk Fri 28 May 2021 10:50:22 No.13201167 Report

Quoted By:

>>13196312
>don't have a definite position
but they do. the phenomena just doesn't show you such properties.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches