There's another thread here about the double slit experiment, which frankly, is way over my head.
On a different forum, I saw some links that showed phenomena that simply made no sense to me. Either their data is skewed somehow, or something is wrong with the experiment:
See the 'trailer' (first link starts the download)
http://whatthebleep.com/trailer/
What the above trailer says is that the double slit experiment was conducted using electrons fired at 2 slits in an opaque screen. I understand wave and particles fine, I think.
Quick synopsis for those who can't or don't want to watch the video:
1. They shot electrons at a screen with 2 slits cut in it. The pattern reflected a 'wave' on the wall behind (multiple lines of electrons in a striped pattern not just two lines if it were particles).
2. They shot individual electrons at the screen. The pattern ALSO showed a 'wave' on the wall behind. How can that be possible with a single electron? There's 2 slits, and 1 electron. How would 1 electron alone be a 'wave' and enter both slits simultaneously?
3. So, to answer the above #2, someone set up an experiment where they mounted a camera to 'observe' the slits to see which hole the electron would go thru, since there's only 1 electron, but it's still forming a pattern of multiple electrons.
Result: the electron ceased to create a wave on the wall behind, instead forming a particle pattern of 2 lines.
How is that possible, in plain english please... and did they do something to the electrons, changed the speed, changed something in order to 'observe' it?
Or... do electrons really behave differently, depending on whether they are 'observed'? That makes no sense at all, so I know I'm missing something.
Here are 2 other links. This is part 1 and part 2 of videos which claim to explain Quantum Physics.
Basically, they claim that matter is a construct of our minds, because it's entirely based on subatomic particles which are in different locations at the same time. I sort of grasp the concept (but not well).
I've always known that there's a universe of space within each atom and the particles in it are really small. 'Mass' being created by the SPEED and physical limitations of the electron(s) racing around the orbit of the nucleus of proton(s) and neutron(s).
My mental image is of something that moves so fast that it can and will be at any point you try to approach it... a fast spinning 3D fan blade if you will, you can't get under or around it within it's orbit without encountering resistance, regardless of how much space exists BETWEEN the blades.
Where I get confused is the claim that each electron is DISAPPEARING and simultaneously REAPPEARING. I thought they simply spun at an incredibly fast rate, so fast that they appear solid (like the fan blade), regardless of how much space is between them (this is how well I know quantum physics... not very).
The below videos are what heightens my confusion:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OypYJtUbMTs&sea...antum%20Physics
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4y2-lq6-h3w&sea...antum%20Physics
Can someone explain to me, in english, how this works?
You are asking a clear and very good question.
I downloaded the first video and I think I am going to take on science.
I believe I will solve the mystery of the two slit experiment of Richard Feynman.
I plan to do this with a new observation measurement of the electrons as they pass the two slits.
The problem is in their placing the cameras or test instrument's in the path of the flow of electrons.
If anyone wishes to help, I need the set up to do this.
Can anyone provide me with the electron gun?
I am on the east cost, and I will travel.
I will check at the University of New Hampshire also.
I downloaded the first video and I think I am going to take on science.
I believe I will solve the mystery of the two slit experiment of Richard Feynman.
I plan to do this with a new observation measurement of the electrons as they pass the two slits.
The problem is in their placing the cameras or test instrument's in the path of the flow of electrons.
If anyone wishes to help, I need the set up to do this.
Can anyone provide me with the electron gun?
I am on the east cost, and I will travel.
I will check at the University of New Hampshire also.
QUOTE
How would 1 electron alone be a 'wave' and enter both slits simultaneously?
It all depends on uncertainty in position. A wave has large uncertainty in position, but good certainty in momentum (wavelength). Hence it will diffract from slits to form the familiar pattern.
A particle has good certainty in position, but large uncertainty in momentum. It is like a light pulse consisting of many different wavelength components.
The Tao of Physics is a good book that tries to answer these questions. read that book and then come back with the questions.
QUOTE
It all depends on uncertainty in position. A wave has large uncertainty in position, but good certainty in momentum (wavelength). Hence it will diffract from slits to form the familiar pattern.
A particle has good certainty in position, but large uncertainty in momentum. It is like a light pulse consisting of many different wavelength components.
A particle has good certainty in position, but large uncertainty in momentum. It is like a light pulse consisting of many different wavelength components.
Ok, but why would the behavior of electrons change when there is an observer vs no observer during an experiment?
Is anyone familiar with the experiment and who conducted it? Did they do something to the single electron stream to make it recordable by the 'observing' camera?
They had to shine light on the two slits in order to see the electrons passing through. That is when there is no wave.
Sooo... shining light (also wave/particle) on a wave phenomenon makes it behave like a particle??
How does that make sense?
They never did this experiment without an outside factor (light?)?
How does that make sense?
They never did this experiment without an outside factor (light?)?
Light collapses the wave function. Temporarily.
If light is the cause according to Nick, what is the big deal.
They are doing two different experiments with different results.
They are doing two different experiments with different results.
Hey curious 1, et al,
Trying to find "plain english" answers to your questions that lead to intuitive "mental images" might prove difficult. Physicists do not agree on a single interpretation of what is happening in the DSE. Check outhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basics_of_quantum_mechanics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio..._quantum_theory.
My favorite twist on the DSE is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. My mind reels at the capacity of the human imagination to devise ever more elaborate experiments to try to prove (or disprove) the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of classical intuition in the QM realm!
Trying to find "plain english" answers to your questions that lead to intuitive "mental images" might prove difficult. Physicists do not agree on a single interpretation of what is happening in the DSE. Check outhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basics_of_quantum_mechanics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio..._quantum_theory.
My favorite twist on the DSE is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. My mind reels at the capacity of the human imagination to devise ever more elaborate experiments to try to prove (or disprove) the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of classical intuition in the QM realm!
QUOTE (curious1+Jul 4 2006, 09:18 AM)
...since there's only 1 electron, but it's still forming a pattern of multiple electrons..
It's not so exact, as the electron's forming a pattern of waves, not the multiple electrons. It means, the energy of electron is spread into a certain volume, distorted by the motion of electron to undulations by the same way, as the water surface becomes wavy above the fish swimming near the surface, or like ribbon bar flapping in the wind.
It means, due the motion of electron the space stops to behave like homogeneous environment, being waved perpendicular to the electron motion direction. Such inhomogeneity changes a path of particle, because the space behaves as a more dense in undulating places. The particles are spreading through space like wave (pocket), so they're have tendency to use more dense space as the path of it's direction (the wave always prefers the more dense environment for its spreading). This is a reason, why the electrons are cumulated along the same path, as the wave interference patterns on the left picture (you can click on it to see it at better resolution). And because the undulation of space doesn't depends on the presence of other electrons, such electron path distortion appears even at the case of the pass of single electron.
I suppose, most the people would understand the Aether Wave theory a much more easily, if they would become more familiar with classical wave mechanic. It's difficult to explain the particle wave properties on the real life examples, if you don't know even such examples.
The quantum wave mechanic differs from the classical one only at the point, each the energy wave increases the environment density for its spreading by such a way, the energy wave spreading becomes nonlinear. You can imagine, for example, the space is formed by energy. Each the additional energy wave just increases the total energy density, thus making it's environment more dense at this place, that's all. It's a quite easy to imagine it, considering the space is formed by the foam, the bubbles of it are collapsing to be able oscillate at higher pitch at the places with higher energy density.
It's not so exact, as the electron's forming a pattern of waves, not the multiple electrons. It means, the energy of electron is spread into a certain volume, distorted by the motion of electron to undulations by the same way, as the water surface becomes wavy above the fish swimming near the surface, or like ribbon bar flapping in the wind.
It means, due the motion of electron the space stops to behave like homogeneous environment, being waved perpendicular to the electron motion direction. Such inhomogeneity changes a path of particle, because the space behaves as a more dense in undulating places. The particles are spreading through space like wave (pocket), so they're have tendency to use more dense space as the path of it's direction (the wave always prefers the more dense environment for its spreading). This is a reason, why the electrons are cumulated along the same path, as the wave interference patterns on the left picture (you can click on it to see it at better resolution). And because the undulation of space doesn't depends on the presence of other electrons, such electron path distortion appears even at the case of the pass of single electron.
I suppose, most the people would understand the Aether Wave theory a much more easily, if they would become more familiar with classical wave mechanic. It's difficult to explain the particle wave properties on the real life examples, if you don't know even such examples.
The quantum wave mechanic differs from the classical one only at the point, each the energy wave increases the environment density for its spreading by such a way, the energy wave spreading becomes nonlinear. You can imagine, for example, the space is formed by energy. Each the additional energy wave just increases the total energy density, thus making it's environment more dense at this place, that's all. It's a quite easy to imagine it, considering the space is formed by the foam, the bubbles of it are collapsing to be able oscillate at higher pitch at the places with higher energy density.
QUOTE (curious1+Jul 4 2006, 06:18 AM)
There's another thread here about the double slit experiment, which frankly, is way over my head.
On a different forum, I saw some links that showed phenomena that simply made no sense to me. Either their data is skewed somehow, or something is wrong with the experiment:
See the 'trailer' (first link starts the download)
http://whatthebleep.com/trailer/
A few clarifications on the "What the Bleep Do We Know?!" trailer with the double-slit experiment. First, that isn't even in that movie. It's in the "Down the Rabbit Hole" sequel. Second, "What the Bleep Do We Know?!" is the biggest pile of excrement I've ever had the displeasure of laying my eyes on or spending my money on.
That being said, the double-slit animation is somewhat accurate. It ends with misleading information though. Your best bet is to simply read up on the experiment elsewhere and avoid the Bleep movie like the plague. It's little more than a cult propaganda movie. Google it, you'll see what I mean.
The Wikipedia articles linked to in this thread are pretty good.
Also, the Mechanical Universe educational TV series from the 80's is pretty good. You can watch it online for free at:
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html
- Dave
On a different forum, I saw some links that showed phenomena that simply made no sense to me. Either their data is skewed somehow, or something is wrong with the experiment:
See the 'trailer' (first link starts the download)
http://whatthebleep.com/trailer/
A few clarifications on the "What the Bleep Do We Know?!" trailer with the double-slit experiment. First, that isn't even in that movie. It's in the "Down the Rabbit Hole" sequel. Second, "What the Bleep Do We Know?!" is the biggest pile of excrement I've ever had the displeasure of laying my eyes on or spending my money on.
That being said, the double-slit animation is somewhat accurate. It ends with misleading information though. Your best bet is to simply read up on the experiment elsewhere and avoid the Bleep movie like the plague. It's little more than a cult propaganda movie. Google it, you'll see what I mean.
The Wikipedia articles linked to in this thread are pretty good.
Also, the Mechanical Universe educational TV series from the 80's is pretty good. You can watch it online for free at:
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html
- Dave
If you go to the whatthebleep.com website you will find the scientists that created that movie.
William Tiller especially.
Pat
William Tiller especially.
Pat
Feynman double slit experiment fails in the assumption that only one particle is emitted at some time!
I believe that actually a short burst of particles are emitted and so different particles pass through both slits and interact after.
The experiment should be made with an improvement, with a precise count detector of how much particles are emitted at a time. This is very feasible.
For some more details visit: On Feynman double slit experiment
I believe that actually a short burst of particles are emitted and so different particles pass through both slits and interact after.
The experiment should be made with an improvement, with a precise count detector of how much particles are emitted at a time. This is very feasible.
For some more details visit: On Feynman double slit experiment
QUOTE (martillo+Jul 29 2006, 09:53 PM)
I believe that actually a short burst of particles are emitted and so different particles pass through both slits and interact after.
The sensitivity of todays CCD cameras enables to carry out such experiments with single photons as a school lab demonstration (video)..
The sensitivity of todays CCD cameras enables to carry out such experiments with single photons as a school lab demonstration (video)..
I'm not an expert but part of the issue is that we have nothing less intrusive or "smaller" than light itself to make measurements with. So you can't really detect whether or not a photon went through one slit or the other without disturbing the photon and also disturbing the interference pattern. If they were large balls, we could roll them and shine light on them so we could see where they went without significantly changing their position (the force from light would be miniscule in comparison to their interia).
But even though this removes some of the mystery, it replaces it with the problem that if all our observations have this restriction, there's no way to passively watch anything and the "observer" is always part of a potentially large chain of events that alters what they're seeing - you're always seeing what something was and not what is currently is - you can't passively observe things (at least from what I know). Instead, it's mutual observations, though questions over "back action" raise the possibility of skirting this issue some. And you're still left after this with the difficult to explain dual particle-wave characteristics as well as some events that don't appear to follow a linear cause effect relationship over what we'd normally assume should unfold over time.
I do think Zephir has lots of good ideas, but the utility of any theory depends on a large number of things and for most people I assume it's difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat. Probably the most valuable knowledge is gaining an understanding of how these properties already affect us on larger scales and what new properties could be available for us to take advantage of.
One view that can help make some sense of it is that the manner in which particles exist, versus the way we see through "spacetime" are different. The particles could be discrete units that we see through waves in space, or alternately the particles are focal points for waves and we observe discrete points in space, so whether or not you see a wave or a point depends on where and how you're looking at things as well as how you interprete the motions. In the double slit experiment you could imagine a single particle travelling through this and that our opening or blocking a slit changes the "filter" characteristics of space through which we see that particle move (and because this can be seen as a subjective interpretation of events, effects from the slit could potentially exceed the speed of light) - for example, imagine looking at a travelling object through a mirror, the path of the object itself isn't altered by the mirror but, depending on where you imagine the mirror to be, bending the mirror out of focus will put a certain blur or shift to all the motions of the object you're observing, no matter where it is in space (though in reality there's still likely a mutual interaction involved but it might be delayed in unintuitive ways, depending on how you interprete space and of course that's where the complexity begins to balloon and "pop!" and you're left hoping some bright minds are around to put the pieces together, not to mention the math guys who can make sure the pieces are glued together precisely without leaks, and then the communcations guys who can put it all into something that "normal" people can understand and then the salesmen who can convince you, it's important enough to understand etc. etc. etc.
... No, I don't think a true "theory of everything" could ever fit into a single volume, not even a hard bound copy. It'll be written in chapters instead and we'll have to wait for the punchline 
).
But even though this removes some of the mystery, it replaces it with the problem that if all our observations have this restriction, there's no way to passively watch anything and the "observer" is always part of a potentially large chain of events that alters what they're seeing - you're always seeing what something was and not what is currently is - you can't passively observe things (at least from what I know). Instead, it's mutual observations, though questions over "back action" raise the possibility of skirting this issue some. And you're still left after this with the difficult to explain dual particle-wave characteristics as well as some events that don't appear to follow a linear cause effect relationship over what we'd normally assume should unfold over time.
I do think Zephir has lots of good ideas, but the utility of any theory depends on a large number of things and for most people I assume it's difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat. Probably the most valuable knowledge is gaining an understanding of how these properties already affect us on larger scales and what new properties could be available for us to take advantage of.
One view that can help make some sense of it is that the manner in which particles exist, versus the way we see through "spacetime" are different. The particles could be discrete units that we see through waves in space, or alternately the particles are focal points for waves and we observe discrete points in space, so whether or not you see a wave or a point depends on where and how you're looking at things as well as how you interprete the motions. In the double slit experiment you could imagine a single particle travelling through this and that our opening or blocking a slit changes the "filter" characteristics of space through which we see that particle move (and because this can be seen as a subjective interpretation of events, effects from the slit could potentially exceed the speed of light) - for example, imagine looking at a travelling object through a mirror, the path of the object itself isn't altered by the mirror but, depending on where you imagine the mirror to be, bending the mirror out of focus will put a certain blur or shift to all the motions of the object you're observing, no matter where it is in space (though in reality there's still likely a mutual interaction involved but it might be delayed in unintuitive ways, depending on how you interprete space and of course that's where the complexity begins to balloon and "pop!" and you're left hoping some bright minds are around to put the pieces together, not to mention the math guys who can make sure the pieces are glued together precisely without leaks, and then the communcations guys who can put it all into something that "normal" people can understand and then the salesmen who can convince you, it's important enough to understand etc. etc. etc.
... No, I don't think a true "theory of everything" could ever fit into a single volume, not even a hard bound copy. It'll be written in chapters instead and we'll have to wait for the punchline ).
P.S., you can actually see some of these things at home, for yourself.
Grab an inexpensive laser pointer and make a tiny pinhole with a needle through a piece of cardboard and then shine the laser through it in a dark room. You'll see rings of light shining on the other side of the hole, and this light even bends around the corners of the hole.
Another way to see a similar effect in seconds is to hold your fingers close together and look at the narrow space between them - a dark area will connect between them.
Now this may not be due to the same effect, but remember seeing "glasses" made this way that had a large array of small holes and I don't believe it mattered whether you were near sighted or far sighted, you'd see things more clearly focused through them. (That may not be the same effect though but it's just an interesting tidbit).
Also with a laser pointer, you can see interference rather easily but shining it on a white surface (I personally found a semi-transparent white plastic container of water works best but it's not necessary) and holding your head steady and looking at it, you can see dark spots "floating" in space. Now recognize this has been happening everywhere around you since you were born and matter itself has these characteristics, but generally on a smaller, less visible scale and then it becomes interesting to rethink that something so pervasive generally goes by unnoticed in our day to day lives. (I like it because it adds some more unknowns to explore ... the horizon of the Earth was explored but there appear to be new horizons instead).
Grab an inexpensive laser pointer and make a tiny pinhole with a needle through a piece of cardboard and then shine the laser through it in a dark room. You'll see rings of light shining on the other side of the hole, and this light even bends around the corners of the hole.
Another way to see a similar effect in seconds is to hold your fingers close together and look at the narrow space between them - a dark area will connect between them.
Now this may not be due to the same effect, but remember seeing "glasses" made this way that had a large array of small holes and I don't believe it mattered whether you were near sighted or far sighted, you'd see things more clearly focused through them. (That may not be the same effect though but it's just an interesting tidbit).
Also with a laser pointer, you can see interference rather easily but shining it on a white surface (I personally found a semi-transparent white plastic container of water works best but it's not necessary) and holding your head steady and looking at it, you can see dark spots "floating" in space. Now recognize this has been happening everywhere around you since you were born and matter itself has these characteristics, but generally on a smaller, less visible scale and then it becomes interesting to rethink that something so pervasive generally goes by unnoticed in our day to day lives. (I like it because it adds some more unknowns to explore ... the horizon of the Earth was explored but there appear to be new horizons instead).
QUOTE (StevenA+Jul 29 2006, 10:24 PM)
...you can actually see some of these things at home, for yourself...
The experiments you're describing here have nothing with double slit experiment (DSE), it's just a simple diffraction.
The experiments you're describing here have nothing with double slit experiment (DSE), it's just a simple diffraction.
QUOTE (StevenA+Jul 29 2006, 10:24 PM)
...No, I don't think a true "theory of everything" could ever fit into a single volume, not even a hard bound copy...
This is not the purpose of TOE, like AWT. But it enables to understand the DSE easily. What you think (about whatever) is solely unimportant, if you have no arguments.
This is not the purpose of TOE, like AWT. But it enables to understand the DSE easily. What you think (about whatever) is solely unimportant, if you have no arguments.
Zephir,
I watched the link and I'm sorry but that experiment suffers of the same problem. There is nothing to guarantee the emission of individual photons at a time. All they say is:
I watched the link and I'm sorry but that experiment suffers of the same problem. There is nothing to guarantee the emission of individual photons at a time. All they say is:
In the demonstration, we illuminate a triple slit with a laser beam that has been attenuated to such a degree that the {\it mean} path between photons is $\approx 2\times 10^{3}$ meters.
This do not guarantee the emission of individual photons. Short bursts of photons separated by the same distance can be produced by the same process and there is no way to distinguish exactly how many photons are arriving at the slits.
There are special photodiodes that can determine exactly the quantity of the energy of the received photons at any time. They are used for example in SPET medical apparatus of Nuclear Medicine to obtain the spectrum and quantity of the received photons.
I suggest that prior to the experiment such kind of diodes be used to determine exactly the type and quantity of photons are produced at any emission event.
Someday this will be done...
QUOTE
The sensitivity of todays CCD cameras enables to carry out such experiments with single photons as a school lab demonstration (video)..
I watched the link and I'm sorry but that experiment suffers of the same problem. There is nothing to guarantee the emission of individual photons at a time. All they say is:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The sensitivity of todays CCD cameras enables to carry out such experiments with single photons as a school lab demonstration (video).. |
I watched the link and I'm sorry but that experiment suffers of the same problem. There is nothing to guarantee the emission of individual photons at a time. All they say is:
In the demonstration, we illuminate a triple slit with a laser beam that has been attenuated to such a degree that the {\it mean} path between photons is $\approx 2\times 10^{3}$ meters.
This do not guarantee the emission of individual photons. Short bursts of photons separated by the same distance can be produced by the same process and there is no way to distinguish exactly how many photons are arriving at the slits.
There are special photodiodes that can determine exactly the quantity of the energy of the received photons at any time. They are used for example in SPET medical apparatus of Nuclear Medicine to obtain the spectrum and quantity of the received photons.
I suggest that prior to the experiment such kind of diodes be used to determine exactly the type and quantity of photons are produced at any emission event.
Someday this will be done...
(Ok, that's it. I tried to resist responding, but here goes ...)
QUOTE (Zephir+)
The experiments you're describing here have nothing with double slit experiment (DSE), it's just a simple diffraction.
I already gave a specific way people could view the effects of diffraction and interference easily at home. How are these not a part of the two slit experiment? They're integral to it.
I already gave a specific way people could view the effects of diffraction and interference easily at home. How are these not a part of the two slit experiment? They're integral to it.
QUOTE (Zephir+)
This is not the purpose of TOE, like AWT. But it enables to understand the DSE easily. What you think (about whatever) is solely unimportant, if you have no arguments.
Now I understand why you can't reply to straight comments on other threads - because you consider other peoples views unimportant and only AWT matters. Don't worry, the feeling has rapidly become mutual.
This thread was posted specifically to avoid complex abstract descriptions of things or I assume "curious1" would have posted on the other similar thread ... of which I'm still waiting for you to give a reply to, other than you "can't understand English".
I don't know if you're intentionally trying to be insulting or maybe it's a cultural thing but I've really enjoyed many of your posts and can't remember how many times I've already commented that your Aether ideas match a lot of what I thinks happening also, but there's a layer of abstraction you're missing. So please respond to this http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7766&st=60&hl= before trying to causually insulting people and then walking away. You're continually missing the bigger picture because you're trying to use an objective view that noone can directly experience. If my comments are incorrect, please be a gentleman and point out where I'm making mistakes on the other thread (and don't use cyclic AWT references). Otherwise, if you can't demonstrate why these views are invalid don't incorrectly claim they are or make a false statesment like my posts above have nothing to do with the twin slit experiments (why don't you comment on the posts before my last one which were described in greater technical detail?!) I extend some additional comments about simple things people can even do at home (as this was intended to be a less technical thread anyway) and you pick that comment to smear.
Now I understand why you can't reply to straight comments on other threads - because you consider other peoples views unimportant and only AWT matters. Don't worry, the feeling has rapidly become mutual.
This thread was posted specifically to avoid complex abstract descriptions of things or I assume "curious1" would have posted on the other similar thread ... of which I'm still waiting for you to give a reply to, other than you "can't understand English".
I don't know if you're intentionally trying to be insulting or maybe it's a cultural thing but I've really enjoyed many of your posts and can't remember how many times I've already commented that your Aether ideas match a lot of what I thinks happening also, but there's a layer of abstraction you're missing. So please respond to this http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7766&st=60&hl= before trying to causually insulting people and then walking away. You're continually missing the bigger picture because you're trying to use an objective view that noone can directly experience. If my comments are incorrect, please be a gentleman and point out where I'm making mistakes on the other thread (and don't use cyclic AWT references). Otherwise, if you can't demonstrate why these views are invalid don't incorrectly claim they are or make a false statesment like my posts above have nothing to do with the twin slit experiments (why don't you comment on the posts before my last one which were described in greater technical detail?!) I extend some additional comments about simple things people can even do at home (as this was intended to be a less technical thread anyway) and you pick that comment to smear.
QUOTE (StevenA+Jul 30 2006, 03:51 AM)
because you consider other peoples views unimportant and only AWT matters
Nope, just some views of some peoples, because everything is matter of time. I cannot spend it in jealous discussions without relevant arguments with thousands of half-educated people. The negativistic stance without arguments isn't opinion for me.
Nope, just some views of some peoples, because everything is matter of time. I cannot spend it in jealous discussions without relevant arguments with thousands of half-educated people. The negativistic stance without arguments isn't opinion for me.
QUOTE (StevenA+Jul 30 2006, 03:51 AM)
...please respond to this ...before trying to casually insulting people and then walking away...
If you're expecting an answer, put a brief matter-of-facts question in separate post dedicated just for me, please. I'll not search for it it in myriads of technobabbles and off-topic comments. Be brief, logic and understandable as possible during such question. If you've nothing to say, don't say it - it's a formal part of netiquette.
If you're expecting an answer, put a brief matter-of-facts question in separate post dedicated just for me, please. I'll not search for it it in myriads of technobabbles and off-topic comments. Be brief, logic and understandable as possible during such question. If you've nothing to say, don't say it - it's a formal part of netiquette.
QUOTE (StevenA+Jul 30 2006, 03:51 AM)
...I extend some additional comments about simple things people can even do at home ......
Just because I'm expecting a dedicated post with question for me. I'm not required / payed for responding to every post which was sended here during time.
Just because I'm expecting a dedicated post with question for me. I'm not required / payed for responding to every post which was sended here during time.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 29 2006, 08:01 PM)
The experiments you're describing here have nothing with double slit experiment (DSE), it's just a simple diffraction.
I don't think you understand this. Diffraction happens because the wave is interfering with itself, due to 'reflections' of the environment. Diffraction patterns will occur when there is a certain order (or pattern) in the environment. The DSE experiment is a strong indication of why diffraction occurs; that light is in fact a wave 'spreading' out in space. The creation of the wave appears to be independent of time, and this is what causes a lot of trouble if you want to explain what's going on in classical (real) terms.
I don't think you understand this. Diffraction happens because the wave is interfering with itself, due to 'reflections' of the environment. Diffraction patterns will occur when there is a certain order (or pattern) in the environment. The DSE experiment is a strong indication of why diffraction occurs; that light is in fact a wave 'spreading' out in space. The creation of the wave appears to be independent of time, and this is what causes a lot of trouble if you want to explain what's going on in classical (real) terms.
QUOTE (GR+Jul 31 2006, 03:57 AM)
The DSE experiment is a strong indication of why diffraction occurs; that light is in fact a wave 'spreading' out in space.
It's trivial result of course, 'cause such diffraction occurs at presence of each wave. The slightly more intriguing is the explanation, why such wave pattern appears at the case of diffraction of single particles, like the electrons, too.
The explanation of such phenomena from AWT perspective is quite simple though: the particle path wave fluctuations are caused by undulations of spacetime foam in the particle's neighborhood by the similar way, like the undulations of the silk ribbon dragged in the wind, or like the undulations of the water surface by the fish swimming beneath it.
This wave has even its traditional name: it's so called DeBroglie wave and it's origin is based on solely mechanical principle. DeBroglie wave is always oriented perpendicular to the particle motion direction and it causes the diffraction patterns in particle path, because the particle wave prefers the more dense vacuum for its spreading, like common wave. And the vacuum is more dense at the places of difraction pattern, i.e. the places, where the vacuum is more undulated (energy density=mass density).
It's trivial result of course, 'cause such diffraction occurs at presence of each wave. The slightly more intriguing is the explanation, why such wave pattern appears at the case of diffraction of single particles, like the electrons, too.
The explanation of such phenomena from AWT perspective is quite simple though: the particle path wave fluctuations are caused by undulations of spacetime foam in the particle's neighborhood by the similar way, like the undulations of the silk ribbon dragged in the wind, or like the undulations of the water surface by the fish swimming beneath it.
This wave has even its traditional name: it's so called DeBroglie wave and it's origin is based on solely mechanical principle. DeBroglie wave is always oriented perpendicular to the particle motion direction and it causes the diffraction patterns in particle path, because the particle wave prefers the more dense vacuum for its spreading, like common wave. And the vacuum is more dense at the places of difraction pattern, i.e. the places, where the vacuum is more undulated (energy density=mass density).
QUOTE (GR+Jul 31 2006, 03:57 AM)
..I don't think you understand this. ...
I think, you didn't understood the situation, instead. Currently I'm the single person on the world, which is able to explain the DSI experiments by its very physical/mechanical nature. At least I've never met with Aether based explanation of it, although it's a quite simple, I admit, and it could be developed by long time before. Just because the mainstream science doesn't believe in Aether concept, it has so great problem to explain such simple mechanical things occurring in our vacuum during particle motion.
Addition: Here's the probably first practical application of DeBroglie wave in technical praxis.
I think, you didn't understood the situation, instead. Currently I'm the single person on the world, which is able to explain the DSI experiments by its very physical/mechanical nature. At least I've never met with Aether based explanation of it, although it's a quite simple, I admit, and it could be developed by long time before. Just because the mainstream science doesn't believe in Aether concept, it has so great problem to explain such simple mechanical things occurring in our vacuum during particle motion.
Addition: Here's the probably first practical application of DeBroglie wave in technical praxis.
Feynman double slit experiment fails in the assumption that only one particle is emitted at some time!
I believe that actually a short burst of particles are emitted and so different particles pass through both slits and interact after.
The experiment should be made with an improvement, with a precise count detector of how much particles are emitted at a time. This is very feasible.
For some more details visit: Feynman double slit experiment
There are special photodiodes that can determine exactly the quantity of the energy of the received photons at any time. They are used for example in SPET medical apparatus of Nuclear Medicine to obtain the spectrum and quantity of the received photons.
I suggest that prior to the experiment such kind of diodes be used to determine exactly the type and quantity of photons are produced at any emission event.
I believe that actually a short burst of particles are emitted and so different particles pass through both slits and interact after.
The experiment should be made with an improvement, with a precise count detector of how much particles are emitted at a time. This is very feasible.
For some more details visit: Feynman double slit experiment
There are special photodiodes that can determine exactly the quantity of the energy of the received photons at any time. They are used for example in SPET medical apparatus of Nuclear Medicine to obtain the spectrum and quantity of the received photons.
I suggest that prior to the experiment such kind of diodes be used to determine exactly the type and quantity of photons are produced at any emission event.
The text below is from a post I place yesterday that received no response.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=9
though this thread talks about what I am referring to, so I'll continue my thoughts here then.
The book I am reading is And Yet It Moves by Mark P. Silverman, Cambridge University Press.
Page 29 shows the pattern of diffraction when a magnet was placed between the two slits ..., and another picture when the magnet is shielded with a strip of superconducting material. Here's the article for anyone who wants to purchase it: http://prola.aps.org/figures/PRL/v56/i8/p792_1
If one has read and seen the pictures of double-slit experiments then it is not necessary to read the above article to realize what I am about to say.
Let me sound bold and simply say the interference pattern from any and all double-slit experiments are caused by the electric and magnetic flux lines (FL) of earth. An electron or photon shot towards a single slit is, if it has not been effected by a FL before entering, it then will enter the slit. The electron is now imagined in a straight line of trajectory and guided similar to a rifle barrel as it enters the slit, and then once leaving the slit an occasional electron will then sometimes veer subtlety off, left or right towards the closest (one or many? undulating?) vertical FL's before hitting the wall and being detected. Most electrons do not veer off by a FL after leaving the single slit, but some do and hit the wall a little to the left, maybe towards the right, doing so because of the influence of FL's.
An electron shot towards a double slit throws the electron across one or, again, many possibly undulating magnetic FL's generated by the earth (and possibly the magnetic and vector potential fields of the the experimental system itself, which might as well be imagined and included with the overall magnetic flux lines of the earth.) The refracted trajectory of the electron as it travels across one or many FL's before entering and after leaving a double slit is what causes the dispersion and interference pattern on the wall. What those lines on the wall the electrons are generating are simply earth's magnetic flux lines. Is this plausable?
I imagine conducting one of these type of slit experiments in the void of outer space, free of any planetary or solar FL's. Flux lines are all over the place though, even within our solar system but maybe at some distance from a nearby body an experiment could be conducted and I imagine producing only one or two flux lines to show up; not the half dozen lines commonly seen in these type of experiments.
I imagine this thread is not being read other than by those in an under- or graduate level of familiarity with what I am suggesting but if anyone reading this has access to the ear of a physics professor maybe you could comment to him or her about this. I'm sure I am missing something; I don't think I'm the first one to think of this earth type of FL idea.
Mergatroid will live ...!
KLH
New York City
ny_mergatroid@mac.com
P.S. Rumor has it Steve Jobs et al., in Cupertino are researching to create real live cyborg's, T-100 model Terminators. Within five, ten years absolutely, totally cool products are coming out to push a generation to begin a full steam public, grassroot R&D towards the realization of these "things." The West will be the Best to everyone living five hundred years from now, that is if we in the West actually do it.
You heard it first here; not on Drudge.com/.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=9
though this thread talks about what I am referring to, so I'll continue my thoughts here then.
The book I am reading is And Yet It Moves by Mark P. Silverman, Cambridge University Press.
Page 29 shows the pattern of diffraction when a magnet was placed between the two slits ..., and another picture when the magnet is shielded with a strip of superconducting material. Here's the article for anyone who wants to purchase it: http://prola.aps.org/figures/PRL/v56/i8/p792_1
If one has read and seen the pictures of double-slit experiments then it is not necessary to read the above article to realize what I am about to say.
Let me sound bold and simply say the interference pattern from any and all double-slit experiments are caused by the electric and magnetic flux lines (FL) of earth. An electron or photon shot towards a single slit is, if it has not been effected by a FL before entering, it then will enter the slit. The electron is now imagined in a straight line of trajectory and guided similar to a rifle barrel as it enters the slit, and then once leaving the slit an occasional electron will then sometimes veer subtlety off, left or right towards the closest (one or many? undulating?) vertical FL's before hitting the wall and being detected. Most electrons do not veer off by a FL after leaving the single slit, but some do and hit the wall a little to the left, maybe towards the right, doing so because of the influence of FL's.
An electron shot towards a double slit throws the electron across one or, again, many possibly undulating magnetic FL's generated by the earth (and possibly the magnetic and vector potential fields of the the experimental system itself, which might as well be imagined and included with the overall magnetic flux lines of the earth.) The refracted trajectory of the electron as it travels across one or many FL's before entering and after leaving a double slit is what causes the dispersion and interference pattern on the wall. What those lines on the wall the electrons are generating are simply earth's magnetic flux lines. Is this plausable?
I imagine conducting one of these type of slit experiments in the void of outer space, free of any planetary or solar FL's. Flux lines are all over the place though, even within our solar system but maybe at some distance from a nearby body an experiment could be conducted and I imagine producing only one or two flux lines to show up; not the half dozen lines commonly seen in these type of experiments.
I imagine this thread is not being read other than by those in an under- or graduate level of familiarity with what I am suggesting but if anyone reading this has access to the ear of a physics professor maybe you could comment to him or her about this. I'm sure I am missing something; I don't think I'm the first one to think of this earth type of FL idea.
Mergatroid will live ...!
KLH
New York City
ny_mergatroid@mac.com
P.S. Rumor has it Steve Jobs et al., in Cupertino are researching to create real live cyborg's, T-100 model Terminators. Within five, ten years absolutely, totally cool products are coming out to push a generation to begin a full steam public, grassroot R&D towards the realization of these "things." The West will be the Best to everyone living five hundred years from now, that is if we in the West actually do it.
You heard it first here; not on Drudge.com/.
QUOTE (mergatroid+Aug 2 2006, 06:37 PM)
... shows the pattern of diffraction when a magnet was placed between the two slits ..., and another picture when the magnet is shielded with a strip of superconducting material....
Thanks for the response Zephir. Stay with me on the one question though becuase the Mergatroid-Zephir hypothesis may rock the scientific community, ... if what I'm saying is ...? plausible.
Is it possible to refute all past theories explaining the interference pattern created by any generic double-slit experiment by the electromagnetic waves of the earth? I need someone who knows more than I do and can sift through all the physics phenomena one would be expected to know if they had four years or so of college courses under their cap. I have a basic knowledge of the fundamentals but do not have extensive knowledge of all physics, so I may be missing or not realize something so fundamental to instantly disregard what I'm postulating.
Imagine the Mergatroid-Zephir experiment is shot into space ten years from now, a sophisticated double-slit experiment is performed and, let's say no waves are created, only random smatterings. We did it Zephir! We're at least Nobel prize laureates in the future. It's like winning the lottery.
Is it plausable for the earth to be responsible? Just a yes or no on that: plausability.
Is it possible to refute all past theories explaining the interference pattern created by any generic double-slit experiment by the electromagnetic waves of the earth? I need someone who knows more than I do and can sift through all the physics phenomena one would be expected to know if they had four years or so of college courses under their cap. I have a basic knowledge of the fundamentals but do not have extensive knowledge of all physics, so I may be missing or not realize something so fundamental to instantly disregard what I'm postulating.
Imagine the Mergatroid-Zephir experiment is shot into space ten years from now, a sophisticated double-slit experiment is performed and, let's say no waves are created, only random smatterings. We did it Zephir! We're at least Nobel prize laureates in the future. It's like winning the lottery.
Is it plausable for the earth to be responsible? Just a yes or no on that: plausability.
QUOTE (mergatroid+Aug 3 2006, 05:02 PM)
Is it possible to refute all past theories explaining the interference pattern created by any generic double-slit experiment by the electromagnetic waves of the earth?
Unfortunately, the explanation of double slit experiment (DSE) by AWT has nothing to with electromagnetic waves of the earth, so you can keep your explanation for yourself as quite unique "mergatroid theory".
Please consider, the result of DSE doesn't depend on the presence of Earth magnetic field, at least no evidence for such conclusion exist at this moment.
Unfortunately, the explanation of double slit experiment (DSE) by AWT has nothing to with electromagnetic waves of the earth, so you can keep your explanation for yourself as quite unique "mergatroid theory".
Please consider, the result of DSE doesn't depend on the presence of Earth magnetic field, at least no evidence for such conclusion exist at this moment.
Zephir, because I think you know more physics than I do, and because you mentioned nothing to render as absurd in a physics sense to what I propose, I will put my own research time on the phenomena of the earth's magnetic waves in relation to the plausability of DSE. That is all I wanted to know.
Mucho gracious, senor.
Mucho gracious, senor.
QUOTE (mergatroid+Aug 3 2006, 05:54 PM)
Mucho gracious, senor...
Hastalavista, baby! ...
Hastalavista, baby! ...
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 3 2006, 02:19 PM)
Unfortunately, the explanation of double slit experiment (DSE) by AWT has nothing to with electromagnetic waves of the earth, so you can keep your explanation for yourself as quite unique "mergatroid theory".
Please consider, the result of DSE doesn't depend on the presence of Earth magnetic field, at least no evidence for such conclusion exist at this moment.
Nonsense, show the math. No math, no AWT "explanation". Let's see the math.
Please consider, the result of DSE doesn't depend on the presence of Earth magnetic field, at least no evidence for such conclusion exist at this moment.
Nonsense, show the math. No math, no AWT "explanation". Let's see the math.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 6 2006, 03:23 AM)
Nonsense, show the math. No math, no AWT "explanation". Let's see the math.
The explanation/understanding always goes first. The physic isn't a pile of randomly chosen equations, as you probably believe...
The explanation/understanding always goes first. The physic isn't a pile of randomly chosen equations, as you probably believe...
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 6 2006, 12:40 AM)
The explanation/understanding always goes first. The physic isn't a pile of randomly chosen equations, as you probably believe...
No math, no valid explanation, just a word salad. Get back here when you have the math.
No math, no valid explanation, just a word salad. Get back here when you have the math.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. - Albert Einstein
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff+Aug 6 2006, 03:42 AM)
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Very profound, especially coming from someone whose "theory" teaches about "time contraction". At least Zephir is avoiding all these embarassments by avoiding math altogether.
Very profound, especially coming from someone whose "theory" teaches about "time contraction". At least Zephir is avoiding all these embarassments by avoiding math altogether.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 6 2006, 12:40 AM)
The explanation/understanding always goes first. The physic isn't a pile of randomly chosen equations, as you probably believe...
How do you differ between 'simple diffraction' and the interference patterns you see from double slit experiments? What does it tell about the locality of a given photon/particle 'moving' from a given location to its destination?
If you claim to understand something, then you need to explain your theories with a certain degree of logical reasoning. If not, other people will not understand you and question your explanations. You can try explaining known physical phenomena by using your own words and pictures that may differ from what others have done. You can be sure that other people have attempted the same. Ultimately, you'll have to prove your theories with mathematical models. Otherwise, your theory will remain in the philosophic category.
How do you differ between 'simple diffraction' and the interference patterns you see from double slit experiments? What does it tell about the locality of a given photon/particle 'moving' from a given location to its destination?
If you claim to understand something, then you need to explain your theories with a certain degree of logical reasoning. If not, other people will not understand you and question your explanations. You can try explaining known physical phenomena by using your own words and pictures that may differ from what others have done. You can be sure that other people have attempted the same. Ultimately, you'll have to prove your theories with mathematical models. Otherwise, your theory will remain in the philosophic category.
QUOTE (GR+Aug 6 2006, 11:38 AM)
How do you differ between 'simple diffraction' and the interference patterns you see from double slit experiments?
At the first glance, the simple diffraction differs from quantum diffraction significantly:
But here are similarities too. From Aether Wave theory (AWT) perspective, the normal diffraction is just a special case of quantum diffraction. The only difference is:
The density of environment is proportional to its energy density by E=mc^2.
That's all.
At the first glance, the simple diffraction differs from quantum diffraction significantly:
But here are similarities too. From Aether Wave theory (AWT) perspective, the normal diffraction is just a special case of quantum diffraction. The only difference is:
The density of environment is proportional to its energy density by E=mc^2.
That's all.
QUOTE (GR+Aug 6 2006, 11:38 AM)
Ultimately, you'll have to prove your theories with mathematical models.
Of course. The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two simple equations:
1) the wave equation
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle
These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iteration can be done even on PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:
As you can see, at some critical energy density the solution of normal wave equation switches to the solution of quantum wave equation. If you're not familiar with this, you can check the quantum wave behavior in live on the Java applet herein.
Of course. The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two simple equations:
1) the wave equation
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle
These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iteration can be done even on PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:
As you can see, at some critical energy density the solution of normal wave equation switches to the solution of quantum wave equation. If you're not familiar with this, you can check the quantum wave behavior in live on the Java applet herein.
One of the observations that resulted in the development of quantum mechanics was that that the energy in each photon was found experimentally to be given by E = planck's constant x the frequency.of the light. Zephir has drawn what appears to be a representation of a single photon arriving from the left and then splitting into seven or more paths. I'd be grateful if Zephir would be kind enough to clarify whether the diagram relates only to his own theory or whether he is intending to represent a real effect..
-C2.
-C2.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 6 2006, 08:49 AM)
At the first glance, the simple diffraction differs from quantum diffraction significantly:
The density of environment is proportional to its energy density by E=mc^2.
That's all.
Of course. The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two simple equations:
1) the wave equation
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle
These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iteration can be done even on PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:
This is pure BS:
-it was explained to you that the correct and complete formula is
E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 , by using the trunkated formul ayou are getting BS stuff as in a massive photon that has the "mass" equal to E/c^2
-there is no connection between the two formulas that you copied at random (and incorrectly) off the web and AWT, the simple reason is that AWT has no other formulas of its own.
You have been trying to dazzle people with BS for years, why would you ever stop?
You can't even write the formulas, you are copying gifs of the web. Here they are:
1) the wave equation http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equati...n/equation3.gif
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/public_html/susy/E=mc2.gif
The density of environment is proportional to its energy density by E=mc^2.
That's all.
Of course. The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two simple equations:
1) the wave equation
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle
These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iteration can be done even on PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:
This is pure BS:
-it was explained to you that the correct and complete formula is
E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 , by using the trunkated formul ayou are getting BS stuff as in a massive photon that has the "mass" equal to E/c^2
-there is no connection between the two formulas that you copied at random (and incorrectly) off the web and AWT, the simple reason is that AWT has no other formulas of its own.
You have been trying to dazzle people with BS for years, why would you ever stop?
You can't even write the formulas, you are copying gifs of the web. Here they are:
1) the wave equation http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equati...n/equation3.gif
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/public_html/susy/E=mc2.gif
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 6 2006, 05:28 PM)
the simple reason is that AWT has no other formulas of its own
Right, the solving equations is matter of (numeric) math or computer, not physic in general case. And the AWT is pretty general.
Right, the solving equations is matter of (numeric) math or computer, not physic in general case. And the AWT is pretty general.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 6 2006, 03:26 PM)
Right, the solving equations is matter of (numeric) math or computer, not physic in general case. And the AWT is pretty general.
So far you haven't solved even an elementary algebra problem. As a matter of fact, you haven't solved ANY problem that has been given to you. Remember "the two rocket connected by a string" problem? Where is the AWT solution? Has been more than a month I challenged you to solve it.
What about your incorrect solution to the "photon mass". I corrected your answer maybe 10 times by now, I even gave you the standard relativistic answer, where is the AWT derivation (we got the incorrect AWT answer but how did you DERIVE it?How did you CALCULATE it?)
The point is that throughout your 2800+ posts, you never managed to derive anything, you just make fiat statements. When challenged , you run away or you create diversions. This is not how a scientist behaves, this is how a wanna-be behaves.
So far you haven't solved even an elementary algebra problem. As a matter of fact, you haven't solved ANY problem that has been given to you. Remember "the two rocket connected by a string" problem? Where is the AWT solution? Has been more than a month I challenged you to solve it.
What about your incorrect solution to the "photon mass". I corrected your answer maybe 10 times by now, I even gave you the standard relativistic answer, where is the AWT derivation (we got the incorrect AWT answer but how did you DERIVE it?How did you CALCULATE it?)
The point is that throughout your 2800+ posts, you never managed to derive anything, you just make fiat statements. When challenged , you run away or you create diversions. This is not how a scientist behaves, this is how a wanna-be behaves.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 6 2006, 06:48 PM)
As a matter of fact, you haven't solved ANY problem that has been given to you. Remember "the two rocket connected by a string" problem?....This is not how a scientist behaves, this is how a wanna-be behaves..
The same like you. I can't see no problem with compare to you...
Please consider, I'm not professional scientist and I don't want to be a professional scientist. I've my own job, the physic is just my hobby, like at the case of the most other users here.
The same like you. I can't see no problem with compare to you...
Please consider, I'm not professional scientist and I don't want to be a professional scientist. I've my own job, the physic is just my hobby, like at the case of the most other users here.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 6 2006, 04:09 PM)
The same like you. I can't see no problem with compare to you...
Please consider, I'm not professional scientist and I don't want to be a professional scientist. I've my own job, the physic is just my hobby, like at the case of the most other users here.
Then stop BS-ing everyone. Try to be honest for a change and admit that you have a theory, explain it scientifically and stop claiming that it explains everything under the sun. Also , make some effort in clearing the glaring mistakes. In the meanwhile, don't quit your day job.
Please consider, I'm not professional scientist and I don't want to be a professional scientist. I've my own job, the physic is just my hobby, like at the case of the most other users here.
Then stop BS-ing everyone. Try to be honest for a change and admit that you have a theory, explain it scientifically and stop claiming that it explains everything under the sun. Also , make some effort in clearing the glaring mistakes. In the meanwhile, don't quit your day job.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 6 2006, 09:44 PM)
...stop claiming that it explains everything under the sun..
I never did such claims. The validity of AWT isn't restricted to our solar system...
I never did such claims. The validity of AWT isn't restricted to our solar system...
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 6 2006, 08:49 AM)
At the first glance, the simple diffraction differs from quantum diffraction significantly:
Simple diffraction? Quantum diffraction? Your images does not explain anything!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mulslid.html#c1
You don't need a dual slit to create an interference pattern.
Eh.. I'm not sure what this has to do with the situation, but here are two useful links for you:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../relmom.html#c2
Eh.. I'm not sure what this has to do with the situation, but here are two useful links for you:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../relmom.html#c2
Of course. The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two simple equations:
1) the wave equation
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle
These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iteration can be done even on PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:
Massive elastic strings? Do they oscillate as a function of time as well? Oh my, your theories are really out of this world! No wonder you have trouble integrating your ideas with existing knowledge (and equations) - as it seems you have a hard time understanding the true meaning of the equations you're referring to..
Funny applet, but it doesn't explain anything. You still didn't respond to an important question regarding the locality of a particle 'moving' from a given location to its destination. You're talking of the universe as being a swimming pool, where particles are creating time dependent waves as they are moving around. Such a theory will will not explain the results of many experiments done in the field of QM.
StevenA provided an example of diffraction and how you can test this at home without having two slits. You claimed that the double slit experiment has nothing to do with this 'simple diffraction'. You're twisting words my friend!
Simple diffraction? Quantum diffraction? Your images does not explain anything!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mulslid.html#c1
You don't need a dual slit to create an interference pattern.
QUOTE
But here are similarities too. From Aether Wave theory (AWT) perspective, the normal diffraction is just a special case of quantum diffraction. The only difference is:
The density of environment is proportional to its energy density by E=mc^2.
That's all.
The density of environment is proportional to its energy density by E=mc^2.
That's all.
Eh.. I'm not sure what this has to do with the situation, but here are two useful links for you:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../relmom.html#c2
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But here are similarities too. From Aether Wave theory (AWT) perspective, the normal diffraction is just a special case of quantum diffraction. The only difference is: The density of environment is proportional to its energy density by E=mc^2. That's all. |
Eh.. I'm not sure what this has to do with the situation, but here are two useful links for you:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../relmom.html#c2
Of course. The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two simple equations:
1) the wave equation
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle
These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iteration can be done even on PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:
Massive elastic strings? Do they oscillate as a function of time as well? Oh my, your theories are really out of this world! No wonder you have trouble integrating your ideas with existing knowledge (and equations) - as it seems you have a hard time understanding the true meaning of the equations you're referring to..
QUOTE
As you can see, at some critical energy density the solution of normal wave equation switches to the solution of quantum wave equation. If you're not familiar with this, you can check the quantum wave behavior in live on the Java applet herein.
Funny applet, but it doesn't explain anything. You still didn't respond to an important question regarding the locality of a particle 'moving' from a given location to its destination. You're talking of the universe as being a swimming pool, where particles are creating time dependent waves as they are moving around. Such a theory will will not explain the results of many experiments done in the field of QM.
StevenA provided an example of diffraction and how you can test this at home without having two slits. You claimed that the double slit experiment has nothing to do with this 'simple diffraction'. You're twisting words my friend!
QUOTE (GR+Aug 7 2006, 12:26 AM)
You claimed that the double slit experiment has nothing to do with this 'simple diffraction'
The double slit experiment (DSI) is the general case of simple diffraction, not vice versa. So you can understand the simple diffraction, even try it in the kitchen with laser pointer, but it doesn't takes you in the complete understanding of the DSI. This is way, how to understand my previous posts.
Now I'll repeat all the steps necessary to understand the DSI (by my opinion) once again:
1) By AWT the mass density of wave environment is proportional the energy density from the very begining of Universe.
2) The current vacuum is quite dense already, so that the passing of quite large energy makes just a rather subtle density increasing in the form of density blob, which focuses the energy wave into wave pockets.
3) Each the particle is formed by such wave pocket too. Such wave pocket is just as small, as the requirement of the internal resonance of energy wave in the density blob allows.
4) The vacuum is formed by such tiny wave pockets recursivelly and the energy density fluctuations makes the vacuum randomly dense in time
5) The energy wave always preffers more dense material for its spreading. So whenever some particle passes through such vacuum, the path is stochastic due the random momental density configuration of vacuum in time. As the result, the particle never passes through same path in repeated experiment.
6) The movement of particle makes the standing density wave inside the vacuum, very similar to those, which appears above the fish at watter surface above the fish, swimming beneath the surface. Such wave is always oriented perpendicular to the particle motion direction and it's called the deBroglie wave
7) The deBroglie wave interferes with the double slit like each normal wave into flabbelliform patterns. This is the only point, where the wave diffraction experiment can help to understand the DSI.
8) The flabbelliform patterns are making the vacuum more dense by the same way, like each energy wave, because they're affecting the distribution of vacuum fluctuation density.
9) Because the particle wave pocket prefers the more dense environment for it's spreading, the flabbelliform diffraction paths after the double slit are statistically preferred for the subseqent particle motion. So we explained the semi-random character of particle motion.
10) Now would follow the tricky part. We have to explain, why the attempt to observe such particle before the achievement of target screen destroys the diffraction pattern. We should learn something about quantum entanglement.
Did you understand my explanation of DSI to this point?
The double slit experiment (DSI) is the general case of simple diffraction, not vice versa. So you can understand the simple diffraction, even try it in the kitchen with laser pointer, but it doesn't takes you in the complete understanding of the DSI. This is way, how to understand my previous posts.
Now I'll repeat all the steps necessary to understand the DSI (by my opinion) once again:
1) By AWT the mass density of wave environment is proportional the energy density from the very begining of Universe.
2) The current vacuum is quite dense already, so that the passing of quite large energy makes just a rather subtle density increasing in the form of density blob, which focuses the energy wave into wave pockets.
3) Each the particle is formed by such wave pocket too. Such wave pocket is just as small, as the requirement of the internal resonance of energy wave in the density blob allows.
4) The vacuum is formed by such tiny wave pockets recursivelly and the energy density fluctuations makes the vacuum randomly dense in time
5) The energy wave always preffers more dense material for its spreading. So whenever some particle passes through such vacuum, the path is stochastic due the random momental density configuration of vacuum in time. As the result, the particle never passes through same path in repeated experiment.
6) The movement of particle makes the standing density wave inside the vacuum, very similar to those, which appears above the fish at watter surface above the fish, swimming beneath the surface. Such wave is always oriented perpendicular to the particle motion direction and it's called the deBroglie wave
7) The deBroglie wave interferes with the double slit like each normal wave into flabbelliform patterns. This is the only point, where the wave diffraction experiment can help to understand the DSI.
8) The flabbelliform patterns are making the vacuum more dense by the same way, like each energy wave, because they're affecting the distribution of vacuum fluctuation density.
9) Because the particle wave pocket prefers the more dense environment for it's spreading, the flabbelliform diffraction paths after the double slit are statistically preferred for the subseqent particle motion. So we explained the semi-random character of particle motion.
10) Now would follow the tricky part. We have to explain, why the attempt to observe such particle before the achievement of target screen destroys the diffraction pattern. We should learn something about quantum entanglement.
Did you understand my explanation of DSI to this point?
QUOTE (GR+Aug 7 2006, 12:26 AM)
Massive elastic strings? Do they oscillate as a function of time as well
The "string" denomination is defined by AWT in its natural meaning. The string is simply piece of elastic massive environment with arbitrary (potentially infinite) number of dimensions and mass/energy density distribution - no less, no more.
Such string oscillates as a function of time, like each string. With compare to superstring theory, AWT's strings are quite normal non-quantized strings, simply vibrating pieces of Aether matter with no specific properties, shape and/or other attributes, described by the wave equation in its fundamental form:. The quantization of strings is the result of phase transform of Aether into foamy structure - not the insintric property of such environment or some ad-hoc postulate! The AWT "doesn't know" about quantum/relativity theory and/or behavior - instead of this it derives them.
By such way, the AWT keeps the whole physical model as simple, as possible.
The "string" denomination is defined by AWT in its natural meaning. The string is simply piece of elastic massive environment with arbitrary (potentially infinite) number of dimensions and mass/energy density distribution - no less, no more.
Such string oscillates as a function of time, like each string. With compare to superstring theory, AWT's strings are quite normal non-quantized strings, simply vibrating pieces of Aether matter with no specific properties, shape and/or other attributes, described by the wave equation in its fundamental form:
. The quantization of strings is the result of phase transform of Aether into foamy structure - not the insintric property of such environment or some ad-hoc postulate! The AWT "doesn't know" about quantum/relativity theory and/or behavior - instead of this it derives them.By such way, the AWT keeps the whole physical model as simple, as possible.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 6 2006, 10:06 PM)
The double slit experiment (DSI) is the general case of simple diffraction, not vice versa. So you can understand the simple diffraction, even try it in the kitchen with laser pointer, but it doesn't takes you in the complete understanding of the DSI. This is way, how to understand my previous posts.
The wave is interfering with itself. It happens in all cases of diffraction in QM. Can it be more difficult?
Ouch! This is what you said some days ago:
Ouch! This is what you said some days ago:
Currently I'm the single person on the world, which is able to explain the DSI experiments by its very physical/mechanical nature.
I think you've run into yourself here. Your theory is just (one of many) philosophic views on the universe. It has no scientific value. There's nothing wrong about making up your understanding of the universe, but to claim that you're the only one who can explain a physical experiment, when in reality you can't (by scientific measures), then you've become far too self-assured.
The wave is interfering with itself. It happens in all cases of diffraction in QM. Can it be more difficult?
QUOTE
10) Now would follow the tricky part. We have to explain, why the attempt to observe such particle before the achievement of target screen destroys the diffraction pattern. We should learn something about quantum entanglement.
Ouch! This is what you said some days ago:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 10) Now would follow the tricky part. We have to explain, why the attempt to observe such particle before the achievement of target screen destroys the diffraction pattern. We should learn something about quantum entanglement. |
Ouch! This is what you said some days ago:
Currently I'm the single person on the world, which is able to explain the DSI experiments by its very physical/mechanical nature.
I think you've run into yourself here. Your theory is just (one of many) philosophic views on the universe. It has no scientific value. There's nothing wrong about making up your understanding of the universe, but to claim that you're the only one who can explain a physical experiment, when in reality you can't (by scientific measures), then you've become far too self-assured.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 6 2006, 10:25 PM)
Such string oscillates as a function of time, like each string. With compare to superstring theory, AWT's strings are quite normal non-quantized strings, simply vibrating pieces of Aether matter with no specific properties, shape and/or other attributes, described by the wave equation in its fundamental form: .
Your theory is completely falling apart at this point. It does not fit into what we know about QM. Your interpretation of the wavefunction is incorrect. If you don't see this, then I suggest you do a little more reading.
Then it's your task to derive the relation between your theory and QM. As it stands now, you're facing a number of contradictions in order to prove your theory.
.Your theory is completely falling apart at this point. It does not fit into what we know about QM. Your interpretation of the wavefunction is incorrect. If you don't see this, then I suggest you do a little more reading.
QUOTE
The quantization of strings is the result of phase transform of Aether into foamy structure - not the insintric property of such environment or some ad-hoc postulate! The AWT "doesn't know" about quantum/relativity theory and/or behavior - instead of this it derives them.
Then it's your task to derive the relation between your theory and QM. As it stands now, you're facing a number of contradictions in order to prove your theory.
QUOTE (GR+Aug 7 2006, 04:19 AM)
Your theory is completely falling apart at this point. It does not fit into what we know about QM. Your interpretation of the wavefunction is incorrect. If you don't see this, then I suggest you do a little more reading
My theory is excellent at this point. It fits everything what we know about QM. My interpretation of wave function is perfect. If you don't see this, then I suggest you do a little more reading.
As you can see, this style of discussion without arguments is somewhat boring and wasting space on this server, so I'd recommend you to use a somewhat different tactic...
My theory is excellent at this point. It fits everything what we know about QM. My interpretation of wave function is perfect. If you don't see this, then I suggest you do a little more reading.
As you can see, this style of discussion without arguments is somewhat boring and wasting space on this server, so I'd recommend you to use a somewhat different tactic...
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 7 2006, 06:53 AM)
My theory is excellent at this point. It fits everything what we know about QM. My interpretation of wave function is perfect. If you don't see this, then I suggest you do a little more reading.
As you can see, this style of discussion without arguments is somewhat boring and wasting space on this server, so I'd recommend you to use a somewhat different tactic...
...and you are oh, so modest. Too bad that no one would consider your AWT for publication and you are left to duke it out in a crackpot forum.
As you can see, this style of discussion without arguments is somewhat boring and wasting space on this server, so I'd recommend you to use a somewhat different tactic...
...and you are oh, so modest. Too bad that no one would consider your AWT for publication and you are left to duke it out in a crackpot forum.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 7 2006, 05:37 PM)
...and you are oh, so modest. Too bad that no one would consider your AWT for publication and you are left to duke it out in a crackpot forum.
How do you want to prove this?
How do you want to prove this?
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 7 2006, 02:37 PM)
...and you are oh, so modest. Too bad that no one would consider your AWT for publication and you are left to duke it out in a crackpot forum.
I think he needs to come up with a lot more in order to be published. Have a look at another 'competing theory', the Grand Unified Theory:
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/index.htm
In particular, I liked the description of the 3 colors that photons are supposed to have:
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/photon07.htm
If something like this can be published, then practically anything can!
Scientific or not? This article should enlighten the issue a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories
I think he needs to come up with a lot more in order to be published. Have a look at another 'competing theory', the Grand Unified Theory:
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/index.htm
In particular, I liked the description of the 3 colors that photons are supposed to have:
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/photon07.htm
If something like this can be published, then practically anything can!
Scientific or not? This article should enlighten the issue a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories
QUOTE (GR+Aug 7 2006, 10:49 PM)
I think he needs to come up with a lot more in order to be published. Have a look at another 'competing theory', the Grand Unified Theory:
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/index.htm
In particular, I liked the description of the 3 colors that photons are supposed to have:
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/photon07.htm
If something like this can be published, then practically anything can!
Scientific or not? This article should enlighten the issue a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories
Theorem1: There is an infinite number of crackpots.
Corollary1: There aren't enough days in the year to run after all of them.
Corollary2: None of the crackpots ever admits and none of them ever reforms.
Theorem2: Luckily none of the crackpots ever gets published in a non-crackpot journal. Some do get published in crackpot journals.
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/index.htm
In particular, I liked the description of the 3 colors that photons are supposed to have:
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/photon07.htm
If something like this can be published, then practically anything can!
Scientific or not? This article should enlighten the issue a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories
Theorem1: There is an infinite number of crackpots.
Corollary1: There aren't enough days in the year to run after all of them.
Corollary2: None of the crackpots ever admits and none of them ever reforms.
Theorem2: Luckily none of the crackpots ever gets published in a non-crackpot journal. Some do get published in crackpot journals.
QUOTE (GR+Aug 8 2006, 01:49 AM)
In particular, I liked the description of the 3 colors that photons are supposed to have:.. If something like this can be published, then practically anything can!
Well - if nothing else, the way, by which such theory is illustrated is definitely interesting (a Marc Chagall cartoon style):
But the AWT is slightly different and it doesn't solves such details. It simply iterates the two equations - no less, no more. Everything else is based on the result of such iterations. The fundamental question arises, if we combine the two valid equations without further assumptions, can be the result wrong, at least from formal mathematical perspective?
Well - if nothing else, the way, by which such theory is illustrated is definitely interesting (a Marc Chagall cartoon style):
But the AWT is slightly different and it doesn't solves such details. It simply iterates the two equations
- no less, no more. Everything else is based on the result of such iterations. The fundamental question arises, if we combine the two valid equations without further assumptions, can be the result wrong, at least from formal mathematical perspective?
I was wondering if anyone has studied Dr. Chaim H. Tejman's Theory?
I wonder what his reason is for his childlike drawings?
It seems he wants it to look like a child's drawing.
I wonder what his reason is for his childlike drawings?
It seems he wants it to look like a child's drawing.
QUOTE (boneheaded+Aug 8 2006, 05:12 AM)
I was wondering if anyone has studied Dr. Chaim H. Tejman's Theory?
Nobody say's it's incorrect.. After all, it deals with the same artifacts, like the AWT : the wave equations and mass-energy equivalence.
Nobody say's it's incorrect.. After all, it deals with the same artifacts, like the AWT : the wave equations and mass-energy equivalence.
Can we have a public debate on the Double Slit Experiment, over the next month
Calling all Double Slit Experiment Experts......
Regards
Terry Giblin
Calling all Double Slit Experiment Experts......
Regards
Terry Giblin
The double slit experiment in all its forms illustrates the fundamental weirdness of quantum mechanics and the universe. None of the experiments can be explained by classical means.
Wheelers "delayed choice" experiment was inspired - it sent an electron through the apparatus, and waited until the electron had to have passed through the slits.
The thinking was - anything that could have happened must have already been determined by now.
Then instead of letting the electron hit the screen - you snatch it away at the last second and try to take a look at where the electron is coming from. Ah you can't fool mother nature. Yes you can then see it came through one slit or another - BUT - the interference pattern doesn't form.
This starts to make sense if you take an informational point of view. Determining which slit the electron went through, requires that you extract information from the universe. The extraction's interaction changes the universe - and you see that one slit or the other was used by the electron - but it is no longer available to act in a wave like way.
The variation on this experiment that I like is to find some very distant galaxy whose light has to travel around some other galaxy in between it and earth, and whose light is so dim - the photons arrive at earth one at a time. The in between galaxy will bend light (a la Einstein). Thinking in 2 dimensions for a moment - you could say that any photon arriving at earth could have arrived via one side or another of the intervening galaxy.
Hence there was two possible paths for the photon to arrive here - so the intervening galaxy acts like a double slit. And sure enough you get an interference pattern. Try to determine which side was taken and the interference pattern disappears.
So this is a mind blower - the path of a photon setting out billions of years ago is instantaneously set by a bit of information we extract today. Wheeler coined the phrase "It from Bit" to describe this.
Was it Bohr that said? - anyone who says they understand Quantum Mechanics clearly hasn't understood it.
Wheelers "delayed choice" experiment was inspired - it sent an electron through the apparatus, and waited until the electron had to have passed through the slits.
The thinking was - anything that could have happened must have already been determined by now.
Then instead of letting the electron hit the screen - you snatch it away at the last second and try to take a look at where the electron is coming from. Ah you can't fool mother nature. Yes you can then see it came through one slit or another - BUT - the interference pattern doesn't form.
This starts to make sense if you take an informational point of view. Determining which slit the electron went through, requires that you extract information from the universe. The extraction's interaction changes the universe - and you see that one slit or the other was used by the electron - but it is no longer available to act in a wave like way.
The variation on this experiment that I like is to find some very distant galaxy whose light has to travel around some other galaxy in between it and earth, and whose light is so dim - the photons arrive at earth one at a time. The in between galaxy will bend light (a la Einstein). Thinking in 2 dimensions for a moment - you could say that any photon arriving at earth could have arrived via one side or another of the intervening galaxy.
Hence there was two possible paths for the photon to arrive here - so the intervening galaxy acts like a double slit. And sure enough you get an interference pattern. Try to determine which side was taken and the interference pattern disappears.
So this is a mind blower - the path of a photon setting out billions of years ago is instantaneously set by a bit of information we extract today. Wheeler coined the phrase "It from Bit" to describe this.
Was it Bohr that said? - anyone who says they understand Quantum Mechanics clearly hasn't understood it.
What's good too in your essay is that it gives insight into Quantum Entanglement appearing to be trans time. It reminds me of some posts i wrote recently where my suggestion was that whilst mass can't travel back through time because of time cones/can't take the Sq root of -1 within Lorenz other types of energy fields possibly could.
In your essay you have demonstrated the causality of the path taken yesterday will be determined by tomorrow. Seems like instantaneous trans-time-like Quantum Entanglement is pretty obvious. I also wrote some posts recently titled force fields recently that Good Elf kindly consented to have a look at and give an opinion.
In conclusion have at the following post I wrote last year in relation to Yesterday being determined by tomorrow:
Quantum Computers
chrisrivos
Posted on: Apr 5 2006, 10:27 AM
Replies: 0
Views: 892
Decoherance causuality may not be absolutely the cause of immediate interference at present! Depending on which quantum physicist your a fan of your either `Time line is there always was and will be' or `Only present is real and time is just in our memories'
I have a theory that what superpositions pertaining to `Event' has been distilled from the squeezing effects of other interacting events in the unstable future as a time loop through hyperspace. Just a theory but a multitude of experiments to prove either one way or another to be designed up for grabs!
Forum: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories • Post Preview: #79895
In your essay you have demonstrated the causality of the path taken yesterday will be determined by tomorrow. Seems like instantaneous trans-time-like Quantum Entanglement is pretty obvious. I also wrote some posts recently titled force fields recently that Good Elf kindly consented to have a look at and give an opinion.
In conclusion have at the following post I wrote last year in relation to Yesterday being determined by tomorrow:
Quantum Computers
chrisrivos
Posted on: Apr 5 2006, 10:27 AM
Replies: 0
Views: 892
Decoherance causuality may not be absolutely the cause of immediate interference at present! Depending on which quantum physicist your a fan of your either `Time line is there always was and will be' or `Only present is real and time is just in our memories'
I have a theory that what superpositions pertaining to `Event' has been distilled from the squeezing effects of other interacting events in the unstable future as a time loop through hyperspace. Just a theory but a multitude of experiments to prove either one way or another to be designed up for grabs!
Forum: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories • Post Preview: #79895
I've read the thread & still don't quite have a handle on something 
Forgive this layman's question, but here goes:
Concerning the one particle-at-a-time version of the double slit experiment (or small burst of particles as considered by some), is the apparent collapse of the wave function caused directly by interaction between the particle(s) and the device used to detect its slit of passage?
In other words, does the measuring device screw up the measurement?
If the slit detection equipment is clumsily affecting the state of the wave/particle by means of known physics, then the notion that the wave/particle "knows" it's being watched is a gross misrepresentation in the short film I just watched (DR Qunatum - Double Slit Experiment). If it is the equipment which is physically altering the state/path of the photon(s), then the experiment only shows itself to be an experiment incapable of concluding anything. Kind of like using a flashlight to find out where moths hang out at night. But I'm sure the scientists couldn't be that stupid, so it must be my massive capacity for ignorance that keeps me baffled by this.
If there is no known or forseable means by which the slit detection apparatus would so affect the wave/particle, then the quantum world would seem to be affected by mere observation. This is what I'm curious about - if this is true it's fascinating. I trust there is a short answer that can bridge the gap between this layman and the experts: Equipment or Observation?
Cheers!
Forgive this layman's question, but here goes:Concerning the one particle-at-a-time version of the double slit experiment (or small burst of particles as considered by some), is the apparent collapse of the wave function caused directly by interaction between the particle(s) and the device used to detect its slit of passage?
In other words, does the measuring device screw up the measurement?
If the slit detection equipment is clumsily affecting the state of the wave/particle by means of known physics, then the notion that the wave/particle "knows" it's being watched is a gross misrepresentation in the short film I just watched (DR Qunatum - Double Slit Experiment). If it is the equipment which is physically altering the state/path of the photon(s), then the experiment only shows itself to be an experiment incapable of concluding anything. Kind of like using a flashlight to find out where moths hang out at night. But I'm sure the scientists couldn't be that stupid, so it must be my massive capacity for ignorance that keeps me baffled by this.
If there is no known or forseable means by which the slit detection apparatus would so affect the wave/particle, then the quantum world would seem to be affected by mere observation. This is what I'm curious about - if this is true it's fascinating. I trust there is a short answer that can bridge the gap between this layman and the experts: Equipment or Observation?
Cheers!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.