Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Capsules   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
    #8241019 - 04/05/08 01:09 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Why does having an observer effect the physical properties?

This is a fallacy, probably based on the fact that quantum physicists use a different meaning for "observer" than is normally assumed.

When you do an experiment with light, like the double-slit experiment, what changes is the setup of the experiment...not the actual light. The light is exactly the same, whether we measure it as being a particle or as a wave.




so cool to see it mentioned - and done a good job of it to DC .

So what is the latest explanation they have for this .. is it written in math logic ?


Along the 'non-random' patterns of electron deposits over  (i.e. not random 1.e another dimension) this observer effect certainly rocks!! - now i want to see how it rolls :smile:

Anyone got a link through to the original evidence/experiment of this result ?


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
    #8241070 - 04/05/08 01:26 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

The notion of a "particle" is wrong and out-dated. Light is not a small ball of anything.




So you are saying that wavefunctions dont collapse to particles when observed?




When we rename the "collapsed"" wave form along the lines of a compressed/semi-compressed/standing wave things will start making a lot more sense .

That is to say that classic particles also connect to the universe the way that wave packets do .. so in a way the collapsing wave is only part of the story the rest like or not like an aura field is still out there .


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
    #8241102 - 04/05/08 01:35 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
What do you mean what changes is the setup of the experiment?

Very simple...the experiment changes based on whether you have 1 or 2 slits open. A change in the experiment provides a change in observation.

The light does change if it is observed or not.

"Observed" is such a loaded word...

Rather, we should say that light is affected by whatever it is we use to observe it. The idea of "observed" meaning an "intelligent observer" is wrong to use here.

You cannot measure light as a wave

Really? Then what is the double slit experiment performed with two open slits doing?

when you measure it it collapses to a particle

The notion of a "particle" is wrong and out-dated. Light is not a small ball of anything.

If you run the double slit experiment (with light or mass) and dont look to see what slit it goes through, you get an interference pattern. If you do look to se what slit it goes through, you do not get an interference pattern. That is a clear indication that observation does have an effect.

Again, observation (although commonly used) is not the right word to use. If you set anything in the path of the light beam to detect it, you are changing the experiment. It isn't the same as running the experiment without a detector.




Tredel i think you are speaking more truth .. not that the other point of view is wrong , because it is quoting std mainstream physics history , but that the precedent given to the uncertainty principal beyond experimental setup was incorrect .

Fact is that a lot of mileage can be gained from revisiting and re-evaluating stuff that was established decades ago .. our whole notion of experimental set-up has dramatically altered since the 60's .. we are much more open minded than we weeeere .

However if the interference pattern was to be effected by the observing equipment .. then what exactly is the likelihood that the delta to interference patterns generated would be 100% effective in whitewashing the results ? ..

Something very important is being ignored until we humans address this issue with more respect !


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
    #8241123 - 04/05/08 01:41 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

TheCow said:
It is true though, that if you place a detector at a slit it will mess up the results, there a lot of theories why that is. It goes deeper than just the 'we cant observe it' phenomenon, you can explain it much better mathematically.




The key point ..

what is the equation .. its presented as a classic y=1/x relationship on paper isn't it ?


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: MDMC]
    #8241146 - 04/05/08 01:48 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MDMC said:
Your saying that when a device observes which hole, it has to alter the particle/wave in the very act of observing it?

Isn't there a method of detection that doesn't alter it? I suppose not.


What about the particle interfering with itself? That is strange!




Yes but does it ?
That phrase is a nice simple joining of the dots .. but what if that is not actually what is happening at all .. imagine the possibility that there is a nother dimension to the travel of the electron .. that it is transiting in an existing emf field that is corrogated wavy sinosiodal and it has to follow this pattern in the "ocean" it flows through .

How about that the position of the energy deposit at receptor is directly influenced by the standing position of a floating variable in the the next dimension .. as though it was at a dimension at right angles to our own .

And that this baseline is very sensitive and collapses/condenses when observed thus totally negating the local effect .



--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Edited by cleeen (04/05/08 02:34 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: xdzt]
    #8241190 - 04/05/08 02:07 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

xdzt said:
On a somewhat tangential note, I just thought I'd add that uncertainty isn't a result of observation.



The theory of quantum mechanics is basically a set of equations based on assumptions regarding the natural world which have been confirmed experimentally -- like any theory. As a result, a theory can not predict anything that isn't compatible with its mathematics. In quantum's case, it turns out that due to the limitations of the equations, you can not know precisely both the momentum and location of a particle/wave. Whether or not this is a fundamental truth or simply the result of a hitherto imperfect theory remains to be seen.

I just thought I'd point that out. :smile: Even without the observer effect there's still uncertainty.




Yes , but the Interference effect you speak of there has never been proven/confirmed by experiment .

Direct interference is experiment .. that has been proven and the rest is allmost pure unimaginative math games .

Fact is that only the classic Direct interference example has ever been confirmed by experiment .


All the equations should include a prime function operator called X for the unknown modulator of location and/or position . Not unknowable but unknown
.
The declaration that "it is unknowable" is intellectual cowardice .


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Edited by cleeen (04/05/08 02:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8241518 - 04/05/08 06:30 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


The other stupid one is shrodingers cat .. i dont want to know if i splet that right .. Cat is in a box with capsule of poisoness gas that may or not open .. thus after some more stupid talk they declare the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead . - yeah right , clearly in this example the cat would have been the better mathematician .

Dont get me wrong i have nothing against being 50/50 its just shuch a stuhpid example .. same as the trees in the forest like amazingly innanely criminally stupid .





It is a stupid example indeed, simply used to put the paradox in one's intuitive grasp. There's barely any question about large object not behaving like small ones do in the microscopic quantum world. One shouldn't get upset about it.

Quote:


I dont believe that John Bell could have possibly proven this in 1964 . On Principal - without seeing the cards based on my intuition and opinion after a lifetime of study .

Did he also come up with a name or phrase for the force that connects the observer to the outcome .. is it suggested to be an energy field ? ..

does it communicate this action faster than 300km/ms ?





Did you read the original paper and the refined version of his inequalities by Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt ? It's a pretty clear cut and simple derivation yet with tremendous implications. Aspen and few others after him did experimentally found the effect to be bigger by 30 standard deviations. Quite convincing if you ask me. The experiment was so refined that it was close to the gedanken experiment itself. I suggest you laugh with us at your claim that he couldn't have possibly proven this in 1964 . On Principal - without seeing the cards based on my intuition and opinion after a lifetime of study . and then you dare speak of scientific arrogance ? I think I just puked a little in my mouth. Tell me that was sarcastic, or better tell me it's supposed to be hilarious.

Quote:


So what is the latest explanation they have for this .. is it written in math logic ?





Yes it can be written in "math logic", pretty straightforwardly using Dirac's bra-ket notation, the standard one in quantum mechanics. That way you clearly see where the interference is killed without any need for a precise microscopic description of the interaction between the electron and the observing apparatus. If you want to go deeper you end up bumping into the measurement problem. The decoherence approach, roughly speaking, to this problem would say that when interacting with a large object, the electron in that case becomes entangled with other electrons composing the measuring device and so forth, but by the sheer amount of electrons and atoms in the measuring device, the entanglement is diluted to a point where no more quantum effects are noticeable in the original observed electron. This is debatable yes and doesn't answer the measurement problem completely, but in some way this decoherence approach captures an interesting effect which is that when the tree fall in the forest, all surrounding trees, rocks, clouds and objects composing the environment are listening.

Quote:


When we rename the "collapsed"" wave form along the lines of a compressed/semi-compressed/standing wave things will start making a lot more sense .

That is to say that classic particles also connect to the universe the way that wave packets do .. so in a way the collapsing wave is only part of the story the rest like or not like an aura field is still out there .





What ? Oh, yeah, makes perfect sense.

Quote:


However if the interference pattern was to be effected by the observing equipment .. then what exactly is the likelihood that the delta to interference patterns generated would be 100% effective in whitewashing the results ? ..!





Wait, what ? Which delta are you speaking of exactly ?

Quote:


Something very important is being ignored until we humans address this issue with more respect





Hopefully you're working on it.

Quote:


what is the equation .. its presented as a classic y=1/x relationship on paper isn't it ?





Is that a dismissing ? Ah no, sorry, it's just you acting smug.

Quote:


Yes but does it ?
That phrase is a nice simple joining of the dots .. but what if that is not actually what is happening at all .. imagine the possibility that there is a nother dimension to the travel of the electron .. that it is transiting in an existing emf field that is corrogated wavy sinosiodal and it has to follow this pattern in the "ocean" it flows through .

How about that the position of the energy deposit at receptor is directly influenced by the standing position of a floating variable in the the next dimension .. as though it was at a dimension at right angles to our own .

And that this baseline is very sensitive and collapses/condenses when observed thus totally negating the local effect .





Are you for real ? I can "imagine the possibility" alright but then I would very much like to read your paper and hear about experimental predictions you make.

Quote:


Yes , but the Interference effect you speak of there has never been proven/confirmed by experiment .

Direct interference is experiment .. that has been proven and the rest is allmost pure unimaginative math games .





Yes it is confirmed, people observed it, for a recent example in atom lasers by the group of Elsinger at ETH in Zürich. By shining two laser at different frequencies on a Bose-Einstein condensate, they produce an atom "fountain", that is a coherent superposition of cold atoms at two different wavelengths which interfere with each others to produce a beautiful interference pattern in the form of a wave-function pulsing, like the pulsing for sound waves. Yes, I am speaking of atoms here, not electrons of photons, but real atoms with their dozen of electrons, protons and neutrons bounded together. All this in very good agreement with theoretical calculations.

Quote:


All the equations should include a prime function operator called X for the unknown modulator of location and/or position . Not unknowable but unknown
.
The declaration that "it is unknowable" is intellectual cowardice .





So you finally said it, you simply advocate for an hidden-variable interpretation is that it ? Bohm already did it, and it so happen that it is perfectly compatible with standard quantum mechanics. The only thing it does is it transfer the unknown brought about by the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function into a "prime function operators called X", he called it the quantum potential force, which is random, and thus just as unknown as before. I suggest you read the wiki's article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation, you'll like it. And don't skip the criticisms section, both side are equally represented and it is an interesting ongoing debate. My highly personal take is that Occam's razor still win.

Edited by deimya (04/05/08 06:39 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8241856 - 04/05/08 09:29 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

:blah:
I thought we agreed that this should be a math only discussion now?  Gee, what a big fucking surprise that you would want to sidestep the math and just ramble in words incoherently about things you clearly have no knowledge of.  I mean shit!  I didnt see that coming :suicide:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
    #8245071 - 04/06/08 12:03 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

deimya said:
Quote:


The other stupid one is shrodingers cat .. clearly in this example the cat would have been the better mathematician .

same as the trees in the forest like amazingly innanely criminally stupid .





It is a stupid example indeed, simply used to put the paradox in one's intuitive grasp.




No, its intentionally corrupt mathematics devised to put it out of ones intuitive grasp .. have you ever heard the saying "There are mathematicians , statisticians and downright liars "? ..

Quote:

There's barely any question about large object not behaving like small ones do in the microscopic quantum world. One shouldn't get upset about it.





.. Have you ever heard the saying "dont suffer fools lightly "? .. this means we should suffer them heavy else they will take it as encouragement ..

Furthermore , i don't see any reason to determine that big articles dont behave similar to small articles .. big objects are comprised of small objects so fundamentally there should be no delineation . That Std fodder Physics means that so very many people assume a divergence whence there is no need for one is at the heart of where std physics has got sidetracked .

Quote:

Quote:


I dont believe that John Bell could have possibly proven this in 1964 . On Principal - without seeing the cards based on my intuition and opinion after a lifetime of study .

Did he also come up with a name or phrase for the force that connects the observer to the outcome .. is it suggested to be an energy field ? ..

does it communicate this action faster than 300km/ms ?





Did you read the original paper and the refined version of his inequalities by Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt ?




No i haven't and i dont think derivatives of the original proposition will even possibly satisfy me . What i am looking for is the fundamental (a priori) mistakes not grammatical sophistication or cleverness

Lets look at what John Bell actually proved in 1964 and not jump ahead .

I find this
Quote:

John Bell’s formulation of the fundamental ideas in this experiment have been called “Bell’s Theorem” and can be stated most succinctly in his own words; “Reality is non-local.”




So whats the big deal over such a small concepts.. i find it most agreeable .. so what is there to consider as regards uncertainty .. the theorum states that things are determined not uncertain , just that locality has to be somewhat disregarded . Thats certainty in my mind not uncertainty .. so what is it about this simple statement that is so pivotal ??


Quote:


Quote:


So what is the latest explanation they have for this .. is it written in math logic ?





The decoherence approach, roughly speaking, to this problem would say that when interacting with a large object, the electron in that case becomes entangled with other electrons composing the measuring device and so forth, ... this decoherence approach captures an interesting effect which is that when the tree fall in the forest, all surrounding trees, rocks, clouds and objects composing the environment are listening.





Yes but the tree in the forest example is more importantly ego centric crap .. Sound waves exist as forms of energy .. there is no question to answer .. The question is simply insane .. sound waves do not require some english gentleman in order to exist .. end of story . That it has gained so much press is not noble .. its not to do with other trees listening although that is a fair response .. its to do with the mind of a psychopath scientist who does not see reality outside of his own square yard .



Quote:


Are you for real ? I can "imagine the possibility" alright but then I would very much like to read your paper and hear about experimental predictions you make.




The predictions i would make is that there are intersecting somewhat invisible dimensions in our world that can be observed in part via extreme experimental conditions such as quantum effects . as if they are Half a word away while actually in the same space .

Quote:

Quote:


Yes , but the Interference effect you speak of there has never been proven/confirmed by experiment .

Direct interference is experiment .. that has been proven and the rest is almost pure unimaginative math games .





Yes it is confirmed, people observed it, for a recent example in atom lasers by the group of Elsinger at ETH in Zürich. By shining two laser at different frequencies on a Bose-Einstein condensate, they produce an atom "fountain", that is a coherent superposition of cold atoms at two different wavelengths which interfere with each others to produce a beautiful interference pattern in the form of a wave-function pulsing, like the pulsing for sound waves. Yes, I am speaking of atoms here, not electrons of photons, but real atoms with their dozen of electrons, protons and neutrons bounded together. All this in very good agreement with theoretical calculations.





surely that is direct interference .. being bought about by direct intervention .. experimental realistic intereference ..
What you need to proove is that there is fundamental uncertainty .. that the exact position and the exact momentum simply cannot be known .. where is the that proof thats what i want to know .. You all seem to have it under your pillows .. so bring it out .. show me the proof of fundamental uncertainty and i bet right now it is not experimental proof .

Quote:


Quote:


All the equations should include a prime function operator called X for the unknown modulator of location and/or position . Not unknowable but unknown
.
The declaration that "it is unknowable" is intellectual cowardice .





So you finally said it, you simply advocate for an hidden-variable interpretation is that it ? Bohm already did it, and it so happen that it is perfectly compatible with standard quantum mechanics. The only thing it does is it transfer the unknown brought about by the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function into a "prime function operators called X", he called it the quantum potential force, which is random ...




Ahh but i dont think it is random at all .. why is it declared to be random , why should it be ? .. thats stupid its a critical flaw .. it is not random but determined that is the difference ..

So tell me why the hidden variable has to be random ?

Random events are just excuses for scientific cowardice and /or ignorance .


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
    #8245100 - 04/06/08 12:13 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

TheCow said:
:blah:
I thought we agreed that this should be a math only discussion now?  Gee, what a big fucking surprise that you would want to sidestep the math and just ramble in words incoherently about things you clearly have no knowledge of.  I mean shit!  I didnt see that coming :suicide:





haha ..

I did mention it actually and those posts above were regarding previously posted material ..

However i feel you can enlighten me and would like to present you in this game of cards my opening position

My opening position is the Hesisenberg uncertainty principle

y=1/x

so measurement of y is inversely proportional to the measurement of x . I submit that this is merely a experimental condition and you i take it propose that it is a value attribute of reality itself ..


Can you or can you not proove that y=1/x is infact a feature of reality and not an experimental condition ?


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8245185 - 04/06/08 12:50 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Dude, take your tweaked out rambling to OTD or the magical mystery forum. This was a good thread....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
    #8245501 - 04/06/08 04:33 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

The Hitachi Labs Electron double slit experiment




From Tonomura "At the beginning of the experiment, we can see that bright spots begin to appear here and there at random positions. These are electrons. Electrons are detected one by one as particles. "

But the pattern of the initial electron deposits is rather geometric isn't it ?

Consider the first section of deposits in the first few seconds .. could you have guessed the almost symmetrical cartesian layout of these initial imprints ? Surely the first three dots (t=4s) for instance would be expected to form a triangle ? .. Considering the substance of probability statistics .. what is the likelihood of the first three deposits being in a row ?

Have you guys ever actually looked over the original data of these actual electron double slit experiments .


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Edited by cleeen (04/06/08 06:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8246456 - 04/06/08 12:40 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

You are arguing using one set of data. Pretty lame. Repeat this experiment a thousand times and your observations will be just as random. Keep only the first electron dot and again, obviously, you will have a random distribution forming an exactly similar interference pattern.

Like a child you see bunnies in the clouds, but like most adults you take yourself too seriously.

Edited by deimya (04/06/08 12:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8247291 - 04/06/08 04:46 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

cleeen said:
Quote:

TheCow said:
:blah:
I thought we agreed that this should be a math only discussion now?  Gee, what a big fucking surprise that you would want to sidestep the math and just ramble in words incoherently about things you clearly have no knowledge of.  I mean shit!  I didnt see that coming :suicide:





haha ..

I did mention it actually and those posts above were regarding previously posted material ..

However i feel you can enlighten me and would like to present you in this game of cards my opening position

My opening position is the Hesisenberg uncertainty principle

y=1/x

so measurement of y is inversely proportional to the measurement of x . I submit that this is merely a experimental condition and you i take it propose that it is a value attribute of reality itself ..


Can you or can you not proove that y=1/x is infact a feature of reality and not an experimental condition ?



I thought we agreed you were going to look over the derivation of the uncertainty principle?  Im done with this thread unless you want to talk about actual quantum physics.  I think Deimya should follow this also, as I see it there is no point in trying to argue with someone who doesn't even understand the subject he is arguing. 

As for your absurd statement that the dots line up in weird ways.  First of all, do they really?  Have you actually measured to see if those 3 dots are 'precisely' connected with a straight line?  Or are you just stroking yourself and looking at a video.  I want precise measurements of everything you are claiming, until then you are an irrelevant member of this thread and forum

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemaggotz


Registered: 06/24/06
Posts: 7,539
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
    #8247537 - 04/06/08 05:42 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

the magical mystery forum.



:lol: awesome.

what happened to this thread? i no longer know what's going on. :sad:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: maggotz]
    #8247551 - 04/06/08 05:46 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)


Edited by deimya (04/06/08 06:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
    #8249433 - 04/07/08 03:21 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Quote:

TheCow said:
Quote:

cleeen said:
Quote:

TheCow said:
:blah:


I thought we agreed that this should be a math only discussion now? 





haha ..

I did mention it actually and those posts above were regarding previously posted material ..


My opening position is the Hesisenberg uncertainty principle

y=1/x

so measurement of y is inversely proportional to the measurement of x . I submit that this is merely a experimental condition and you i take it propose that it is a value attribute of reality itself ..


Can you or can you not proove that y=1/x is infact a feature of reality and not an experimental condition ?




I thought we agreed you were going to look over the derivation of the uncertainty principle?  Im done with this thread unless you want to talk about actual quantum physics. 






Ok so you dont mean the heisenberg uncertainty principal do you thecow .. you mean something else dont you .. because the heisenberg uncertainty principal is really simple y=1/x or y+x=1 or (y,x)=>1 however we want to put it .. but you are thinking about something else aren't you ?

how about you put up the uncertainty principal in math that you are on about because looking through the internet there are thousands of pages of variations and aspects that people discuss .

Quote:


.. that the dots line up in weird ways. First of all, do they really? Have you actually measured to see if those 3 dots are 'precisely' connected with a straight line? Or are you just stroking yourself and looking at a video. I want precise measurements ..





Well i dont even have a ruler here nor a protractor nor any software that can do that , so if you can advise me how to measure the angle between the first three dots and the distances between them then i'm all ears ..

However that being said when looking for patterns generally we will not be expecting straight lines .. straight lines are not often exampled in nature , by direct evidence . More often the shape will have some curve to it .. Ignoring building etc take a look outside day or night and see if you can find a straight line .

But you are certainly right , and testing this false would be a great benchmark in physics .
You may be miles ahead of me with 3Dplus statistical models but to evaluate the significance of any direct measurements we have to have a working probability distribution .. these electrons are being fired pretty much straight towards the double slit . 50/50 per gap is generally considered . Those that dont make the gap are not discussed . 
We could consider the electrons to be from a single point source so looking at any given electron we attribute a 50% probability .
They are also far more likely to hit the high average density areas of the Long term interference pattern normalized about the center point of that banding .
however the Tokamura version shifts scale dramatically after 20 seconds or so and the absent evidence may be significant .

The other statistical dimension to consider is the timing of points of electron markers . ideally we might choose a std electron timing cycle . All Akira mentions is that the likelyhood of any two electrons being in the path at any time was very very remote .

So if you can direct me to what probability curve we should feed the results into i would be relieved .

As i imagine we will have to test random so we will be using a + cartesian co-ordinate 3d normal curve centered on zero point , and overlaid with a Sine curve like corrugated plane spaced according to the final observable wavelength ..

The probability/Pattern test will have to account for all of those variables except the electron is to have arrived from since that is also unknown this is ok .

Im keen but i dont have the tools ..
A vertically banded 3D bell shaped curve

One last point .. will we expect the probability center point to be near the first three electrons registered ? If it is right thereabouts - is this significant ?

Looking at the first group of results they number off showing rough potential circularity about those first three .. i this also a co-incidence or is the marking the central region first actually for a predictable reason .





Edited by cleeen (04/08/08 03:33 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
    #8249448 - 04/07/08 03:34 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

deimya said:
You are arguing using one set of data. Pretty lame. Repeat this experiment a thousand times and your observations will be just as random. Keep only the first electron dot and again, obviously, you will have a random distribution forming an exactly similar interference pattern.






Exactly , .. The long run average does not have to reflect a non average short term . In a moving pattern of field the long term average does not at all have to be the same as the short term average . Gendarken : imagine a solid white band an inch wide rising up the computer screen just once .
Its a definate pattern .. at any discrete time it will look like a pattern , but a running average of the screen over that time will show even grey . Short term pattern does not equal long term pattern .


Quote:

Like a child you see bunnies in the clouds, but like most adults you take yourself too seriously.




On a good day - True enough on both counts .

Yet I have looked at the publicly available material for the Tokamura example (the video above) and the johanssen version .. they both show clear patterns to me .

Would patterns appearing in the arrangements of the dots over time change anything about your opinion of the dynamics of the Double slit experiment ?

For a hard science that attributes absolute probability to the dynamics of quantum location , this is a great test and proving ground for theory .

check for instance the numbered electron markers (1,3,7) and (6,8,11) .. comprised of self 'similar triangles in Size , Geometry , Sequence , AND orientation . Both also set sequentially clockwise .. so there MAY be a clockwise orientation .

There is a proof in geometry as to the centre .. check me on this .. the lengths of sequential radial offsets from the central deposit (1) .




Measurements of the offset from centre of these markers shows a pattern also .. like it moves in then it moves out .. sets of sequences showing similar radial offsets .

My first rule of thumb measure of these sequential offsets 1 through 10 is (0,1,1,1.5,6.2,4,1,3,4.5,5,3,2.5,2,2.5,5,6)






--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Edited by cleeen (04/08/08 12:35 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8249494 - 04/07/08 04:45 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Sure it could change my opinion, but it would need to be damn much more convincing, and reproducible, which it is absolutely not, than two sets of three dots looking vaguely like similar triangles. Until then it is on par with miscellaneous dudes finding hidden message in the bible, numerologist or "proofs" that bill gates jr. = 666 and such.

Because, really, if
Quote:

check the numbered electron markers (1,3,7) and (6,8,11) .. comprised of self 'similar triangles in Size , Geometry , Sequence , AND orientation .
These types patterns started me thinking . Both also set clockwise .. so there MAY be a clockwise orientation .





gets you thinking, I suggest you stare at a stucco wall for enlightenment.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
    #8249508 - 04/07/08 05:06 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Did you know that Leonardo Divinci said something to the effect that " a person should be able to stare at the most mundane things such as a flat wall and see wonder and beauty in it "

We are looking for software to save the spreadsheet charts i have of those radial offset measures .. will edit in asap .

oK .. done .. Here are the charts ..











The Video shows the Electron traces appearing at the following intervals in seconds ..


(2.30,1.08,0.91,1.61,0.68,0.45,3.10,1.40,1.10,1.14,0.46,2.35,1.70,0.65,0.55)



These intervals chart as follows










--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.

Edited by cleeen (04/08/08 12:47 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Capsules   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* String Theory and Quantum Physics.
( 1 2 all )
ergot 5,219 24 01/03/04 01:02 AM
by MarioNett
* An interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (inspired by psychedelics!) BellumDeorum 683 4 10/22/23 06:49 PM
by Nillion
* Physics help sh1ver 2,087 2 12/25/03 11:39 AM
by micro
* Cool physics site micro 590 1 12/30/03 12:51 AM
by Metaxas
* Am I missing something? Or is the big bang bullshit?
( 1 2 3 all )
Flux 8,496 47 01/29/04 04:48 PM
by Shmoppy McGillicuddy
* Hawking cracks black hole paradox MAIA 1,381 6 07/27/04 09:50 AM
by MAIA
* Nothing exists MushyMay 1,206 8 03/11/03 10:23 AM
by iconoclast
* Huston, we have a problem. AnnoA 1,252 11 04/20/03 11:20 AM
by Seuss

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
16,933 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.