|
MDMC
Strangler

Registered: 03/19/08
Posts: 74
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment 1
#8167778 - 03/19/08 04:41 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Light can be a defined as a wave or a particle but it changes its properties when it is observed.
Mind bending! How can this be?
Why does having an observer effect the physical properties?
|
IAMenlightened
GOD


Registered: 03/02/08
Posts: 156
Loc: FLA
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: MDMC]
#8167807 - 03/19/08 04:46 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
makes me think of if a tree fell in the woods did it make a noise
--------------------
|
MDMC
Strangler

Registered: 03/19/08
Posts: 74
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: IAMenlightened]
#8168439 - 03/19/08 06:31 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Seems the noise may choose to sound different when it knows you are listening.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: MDMC]
#8168449 - 03/19/08 06:32 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Not just light but particles (mass) also! Why? Who knows why the universe is the way it is...
Look into the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to gain a little conceptual understanding of why you cannot observe something without effecting it. In short the only way to observe anything is to bounce shit off of it. With sight we bounce light off of things we see. But of course when you bounce light off of something, you effect it.
|
Newbie
User of semicolons.



Registered: 07/18/04
Posts: 24,710
Loc: SoCal
Last seen: 8 hours, 56 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8169386 - 03/19/08 09:43 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I thought we absorbed light with our eyes, I didn't know we shot light out of them at stuff.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Newbie]
#8169442 - 03/19/08 09:51 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
We use light bulbs to shoot light at stuff... but you already knew thats what I meant
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8169624 - 03/19/08 10:30 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Not me, I capture ambient light with my forehead and focus it in the direction of my gaze.
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: MDMC]
#8171242 - 03/20/08 10:40 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
#8171606 - 03/20/08 11:58 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What do you mean what changes is the setup of the experiment? The light does change if it is observed or not. You cannot measure light as a wave, when you measure it it collapses to a particle. 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.
John Bell showed this is the case in 1964. He proved that there are no hidden variables, and the fact that we dont know where the particle is before observation is not due to our ignorance but is a fact of nature. This eliminates the so called 'realist' interpretation, and leaves only the copenhagen or agnostic interpretations.
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8171668 - 03/20/08 12:12 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
#8171679 - 03/20/08 12:14 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The point I'm trying to get across is that light is only "weird" when you think of it in a classical physics approach. If you cast aside any and all notions of "particles" or "waves" and just look at what experimenting tells us, it isn't strange at all.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
#8171776 - 03/20/08 12:44 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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? (yes, I know observed does not imply consciousness)
Quote:
Really? Then what is the double slit experiment performed with two open slits doing?
You can infer that it was a wave going through the slits, because the particles that impact the screen form an interference pattern. So, what I mean was if you make a observation it will collapse to a particle. If you wait for it to impact the screen to make you observation, it will be a particle, but the particles form an interference pattern.
Quote:
If you cast aside any and all notions of "particles" or "waves" and just look at what experimenting tells us, it isn't strange at all.
And what is it that it tells us? It tells us that it behaves as a particle sometimes, and a wave sometimes. You have to take both into account to describe experiments. Why would you cast aside waves and particles? The schrodinger equation is a wave equation, and the collapsed wave function is the delta function which is a particle.
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8172164 - 03/20/08 02:33 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The collapsed wave function is merely the highest probability location of the eigenstate of the linear superposition. Just think of the hydrogen atom, if you try and measure where the electron is it will take the highest probability location, I forget what that turns out to be. You just use the position operator. 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.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal] 1
#8172924 - 03/20/08 06:09 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> and just look at what experimenting tells us, it isn't strange at all.
Ah, so please explain the mechanism behind this non-strange event.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
MDMC
Strangler


Registered: 03/19/08
Posts: 74
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
#8172990 - 03/20/08 06:25 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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!
|
MDMC
Strangler


Registered: 03/19/08
Posts: 74
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
#8172998 - 03/20/08 06:26 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Can you explain entanglement?
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8174977 - 03/21/08 06:43 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So you are saying that wavefunctions dont collapse to particles when observed? (yes, I know observed does not imply consciousness)
I'm saying the notion of "particles" doesn't work for light.
You can infer that it was a wave going through the slits, because the particles that impact the screen form an interference pattern. So, what I mean was if you make a observation it will collapse to a particle. If you wait for it to impact the screen to make you observation, it will be a particle, but the particles form an interference pattern.
Then don't you see my point? Light is not made of particles. The fact that we see two different things in the double slit experiment is proof of that. Likewise, light is not made of waves, either.
Your last sentence didn't really make sense...how can a "particle" create an interference pattern with itself?
And what is it that it tells us? It tells us that it behaves as a particle sometimes, and a wave sometimes. You have to take both into account to describe experiments. Why would you cast aside waves and particles? The schrodinger equation is a wave equation, and the collapsed wave function is the delta function which is a particle.
Our observations of light under some circumstances appears as a wave...in others it appears as a particle. That doesn't mean that light is a wave or particle...just that it appears as such. You're right, we do have to take both into account when describing light.
Why would you cast aside waves and particles?
Why? Because they cannot both be an accurate description of light.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
#8175890 - 03/21/08 01:13 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
In the end, we talk about whatever model makes more sense for what we are doing. There are many physical models that talk about light as a particle, and some that refer to it as a wave, and some that you have to take both into account. I think you are arguing a semantical point here Trendal.
For instance, when doing nonlinear optics we more or less take both into account to get out our non linear susceptibilities. You take the Schrodinger equation and for the potential you use the dipole moment caused between the incoming electric field and the electron.
However you can also simply use a Lorentzian model where for instance the electron is simply a particle. In this model the electrons are attached to springs that move around with the electric field.
Also theres a model that you can use where the photons behave as particles and the susceptibility is based off of momentum transfer and other things.
The results are all similar, though the SE gives you the entire picture, the other models give you a fair amount of information and if all you wanted was certain bits of info those models work just fine. I think you have the impression that physicists always work with the most accurate models or keep their equations as physicaly realistic as possible. The truth is that scientists dont try and make things more complicated than it needs to be. There are so many expansions out to the first order, for instance you will find first order Taylor expansions several times in some derivation, or you will find this expansion: (1+x)^1/2 = 1+x/2 Things like that, and these equations still work.
It all depends what level of accuracy you are going for. Sure as I said there are cases where youd want to take the particle/wave into account, but there are a huge amount where you can choose which one you want to model.
Another example would be mode-locked lasers. In the laser cavity you will have a large number of modes of light, these will build with constructive interference and get released in pulses. This is a wave model.
And other things will use a particle model.
Basically, it does make sense to model light as a certain thing, it just depends what you are trying to get accomplished.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,372
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8176019 - 03/21/08 01:53 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
damn, this shit is fascinating. you know, i don't really understand any of this, but it's fascinating as shit to me. what the hell is quantum physics? what is antimatter and how did they make an matter antimatter explosion?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: imachavel] 1
#8176221 - 03/21/08 02:54 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quantum physics basically is the laws that govern things on a small scale. The way things work on small scales is very different then the way we intuitively think things work. One popular example that turns your intuition upside down is quantum tunneling, basically there is a finite chance that any particle or collection of particles can move through potential barriers (like a wall) without destroying the barrier or wall. You can calculate the probabliity you would be able to go right through a door without breaking it. (its a very low probability as you would guess...) Interesting mind bending stuff!
Anti-particles are not as interesting as they sound (I think). For every particle, there is an anti particle. The anti particle has the same spin, mass but the opposite charge. For example the anti particle of an electron is a positron. Instead of being negative it is positive. If a particle collides with an anti particle they annihilate each other and turn into pure energy (gamma rays). Hence we dont have anti matter around us, it would annihilate with the 'regular' matter. The anti matter explosion you speak of is the process of annihilation.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,372
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8178455 - 03/22/08 12:52 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
have they proved anti matter exists? i thought energy could never be created or destroyed
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: imachavel]
#8178516 - 03/22/08 01:14 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yea, antimatter does exist and is created by humans in things like particle accelerators (the most expensive substance ever). Also, some radioactive sources emit positrons.
Yes the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed is correct, but you have to consider mass a type of energy. Einstein showed this with the famous E=mc^2. So if mass is a type of energy, then when antimatter collides with regular matter and emits gamma rays its just a conversion of one type of energy to another, 'mass' energy to 'gamma ray' energy. No energy is created or destroyed. And when radioactive isotopes emit energy, they lose some of their mass.
Think about this... If they can create antimatter in a particle accelerator, and antimatter annihilates with regular matter, how can they store the antimatter? If they put it in a container, it would annihilate with the regular matter in the container and disappear into gamma rays.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8182636 - 03/23/08 06:16 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Matter antimatter under supercooled magnetic field ..

-------------------- 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: MDMC]
#8185322 - 03/23/08 10:40 PM (15 years, 10 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!
At the level of classic direct observation energy is flung at the article and the rebound is the data that results in the observable image .. this is oK and completely fair , but imagine that on the level of the photon the sensor must flood the area with particles smaller than the object being watched .. this is difficult and instead we are throwing rocks into a pond to measure how flat it is ..
-------------------- 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: MDMC]
#8185332 - 03/23/08 10:43 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
A shared state of consciousness that holds over time .
since all big bang particles are derived from a theoretical single energy state all particles in the universe are entangled .
-------------------- 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.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8186394 - 03/24/08 09:36 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> For example the anti particle of an electron is a positron. Instead of being negative it is positive.
Beta decay is a good example of this... (beta plus decay to be accurate)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
xdzt

Registered: 02/05/08
Posts: 427
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Seuss]
#8186667 - 03/24/08 10:45 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
On a somewhat tangential note, I just thought I'd add that uncertainty isn't a result of observation.
Yes it's true that you can't observe without interfering with the experiment, but it turns out uncertainty in wave-particle duality isn't due to this fact.
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. Even without the observer effect there's still uncertainty.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: xdzt]
#8186785 - 03/24/08 11:20 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
How can you have an uncertainty in your observation without making an observation?
|
maggotz


Registered: 06/24/06
Posts: 7,539
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8187037 - 03/24/08 12:32 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
you travle faster thn light.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: maggotz]
#8190474 - 03/25/08 07:13 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
There is uncertainty because the laws that regulate the actions there are unknown/not properly described by the set of laws we know .. thus predictability is lacking
Without predictability there is uncertainty ..
However , Quantum state probability laws suggest that there are physical laws that determine the movement of photons etc .. I.e the dynamic wave form is likely to stabilize in a shape that is in large determined by the probability that it should do so - thus Quantum states are normalized probability curves .
-------------------- 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.
|
Taharka
The Root of the Problem

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 686
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8190486 - 03/25/08 07:20 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Antimatter is stored in the center of a vacuum with a magnetic field. Positrons and antiprotons can be stored in this manner. Neutrinos can not be stored because they have no charge.
I don't know much about quantum theory, but isn't one of the points that there is no such thing as "objective" observation, because including an instrument ("observer") in the system the same as altering it? Is there any way to observe a truly closed system if one is not inside of it?
|
Annom
※※※※※※




Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8190899 - 03/25/08 10:02 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There is uncertainty because the laws that regulate the actions there are unknown/not properly described by the set of laws we know .. thus predictability is lacking
Without predictability there is uncertainty ..
How do you know that a lacking predictability is the cause of an incomplete model instead of a feature of reality?
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Annom]
#8195654 - 03/26/08 08:19 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Annom said:
Quote:
There is uncertainty because the laws that regulate the actions there are unknown/not properly described by the set of laws we know .. thus predictability is lacking
Without predictability there is uncertainty ..
How do you know that a lacking predictability is the cause of an incomplete model instead of a feature of reality?
How do i know ? .. by self denial i guess 
There is nothing to suggest otherwise .. Look at some early images of subatomic particles .. then look at more improved images and the clarity begins to show ..
At first sub atomic particles look like small self similar lumps then the ordered diversity begins to emerge ..
Order through Chaos .. or ... from the brink of chaos then onward to complexity

-------------------- 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 (03/26/08 08:30 AM)
|
Annom
※※※※※※




Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8195698 - 03/26/08 08:44 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Very cool looking images, but what does it mean?
Quote:
There is nothing to suggest otherwise
What about the EPR-paradox and related experiments? They suggest that god does play dice as far as I understand (=not very far).
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Annom]
#8213782 - 03/30/08 09:30 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Heres the Thing ..
All new things form at first as cloudy images emerging from the unknown (but not the unknowable)
sailing ships were not visible to islanders who had no knowledge of them , they could be offshore quite visible for days and weeks , but until the islanders recognized them as such Sailing ships were considered to be variants of Clouds ..
The sub atomic particles are first imaged as very rough spherical cloudy shapes .. have a look at the antimatter vortices .. they are generally imaged as self similar cloudy units .. but as the resolution improves we see a way whole lot more character and diversity emerging
The charts above show the complexity of the sub atomic particles behavior .. but they do not demonstrate chaos . This is the common history of all things we know of .. the rules governing their behavior may be unknown to us but there are rules .
Look at the second of the pics above .. each particle is demonstrating precise geometrical paths ..
This is simply as far as we are aware the nature of all things big or small .. there is no unknowable chaotic random meaningless events or articles to proove otherwise ..
-------------------- 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.
|
Thor
Anti-Theist OVERLORD



Registered: 08/12/98
Posts: 10,017
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8224317 - 04/01/08 01:30 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
cleeen said: sailing ships were not visible to islanders who had no knowledge of them , they could be offshore quite visible for days and weeks , but until the islanders recognized them as such Sailing ships were considered to be variants of Clouds ..
oh no not this again, you watched What the Bleep and believed this?
|
Cracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper




Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,808
Loc: Swamp
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: MDMC]
#8225886 - 04/01/08 07:38 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
quantum mechanics is sure an amazing subject/thing. If I had the vast mental capacity/plasticity for mathematics and interest in physics then that's where I'd be. Shit, for where I want to go, I may end up trying to take an intro to quantum mechanics course.
I was reading a book talking about how Einstein wasn't a fan of quantum physics, as the answers weren't clear cut as Newtonian physics.
I think it's beautiful though.
As for the double slit experiment with the eye/observer and resulting in a double line and not the wave pattern.... There must be something missing.
-------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
|
sleepy
zZzZzZzZz


Registered: 01/17/05
Posts: 3,888
Loc:
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8226359 - 04/01/08 09:38 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Edited by sleepy (04/01/08 09:42 PM)
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: sleepy]
#8226447 - 04/01/08 09:58 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
|
lsdPSYCHosis
Stranger

Registered: 03/27/08
Posts: 54
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8227236 - 04/02/08 01:20 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
DAMN, fascinating post!
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Cracka_X]
#8227657 - 04/02/08 07:17 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
As for the double slit experiment with the eye/observer and resulting in a double line and not the wave pattern.... There must be something missing.
Why must something be missing? In order for a measurement to be taken, the thing being measured must be touched. The act of touching something changes it, thus the act of measuring something, changes it. There is no way around this within the bounds of duality. The term 'observe', though accurate, is misleading to the layman in the context of quantum physics. Observation, from a quantum physics view, cannot be passive; the 'observer' must interact with the thing being observed, thus the act of 'observing' must have an effect on the thing being observed.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Thor]
#8227793 - 04/02/08 09:01 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Thor said:
Quote:
cleeen said: sailing ships were not visible to islanders who had no knowledge of them , they could be offshore quite visible for days and weeks , but until the islanders recognized them as such Sailing ships were considered to be variants of Clouds ..
oh no not this again, you watched What the Bleep and believed this?
No . Actually , I recall it from PostGrad Social Psychology AND Philiosophy of Language Studies .
There are several examples i recall . That Islanders thought the Large White Sails of the Ships were Clouds and therefore the People who came from them were assumed to be at first "messengers of the Gods " .
The creation of Language is based upon rather strict laws of meaning . These Laws are rather ubiquitous .. so generalizations can be made based on proven prediction .
Similar verification can be made from the example of 20 questions
If the Answer to all the 20 questions gives no clarity .. the evidence demonstrates repeatedly that the Player will guess the item is "a CLOUD".. its a rather universal example of first descriptions and first images ...
-------------------- 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.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8228428 - 04/02/08 12:28 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Emergent order phenomena are not incompatible with the fundamental uncertainty relations. In most situations there's some kind of averaging across energy and length scales, and you may see a plethora of interesting behaviors depending on how these averaging are carried over and affecting things around. You're simply being mislead by your brain's pattern recognition capabilities and everyday intuition if you think the former would discredit the latter.
|
Cepheus
Balance




Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 8,266
Loc: the space between reality...
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Seuss]
#8229424 - 04/02/08 04:18 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > For example the anti particle of an electron is a positron. Instead of being negative it is positive.
Beta decay is a good example of this... (beta plus decay to be accurate)
Beta minus decay still emits an antineutrino .
I tell you whats more interesting than light being something in between.. Electrons being something in between
-------------------- "I only ever hope to reach equilibrium, in Nature's matrix, in line with the meridian" ~ Jehst
"...and I know that I have to keep breathing, as tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring?" Free Spore Ring Europe Send any spare spore prints you might have and help the distribution
Open Source. Freedom. GNU/Linux Addicting is not a word.
|
Cepheus
Balance




Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 8,266
Loc: the space between reality...
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Cepheus]
#8229446 - 04/02/08 04:22 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Also; a good example of annihilation would be Positron emission tomography.. a beta plus source is introduced into the body then as the source decays it emits positrons, which then annihilate with electrons producing gamma photons , then depending on the time taken for the gamma photon to reach the detector it is possible to determine whereabouts the tumour (or whatever other nasty thing you might be looking for) is..
nuclear physics
-------------------- "I only ever hope to reach equilibrium, in Nature's matrix, in line with the meridian" ~ Jehst
"...and I know that I have to keep breathing, as tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring?" Free Spore Ring Europe Send any spare spore prints you might have and help the distribution
Open Source. Freedom. GNU/Linux Addicting is not a word.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
#8232718 - 04/03/08 09:37 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deimya said: Emergent order phenomena are not incompatible with the fundamental uncertainty relations. In most situations there's some kind of averaging across energy and length scales, and you may see a plethora of interesting behaviors depending on how these averaging are carried over and affecting things around. You're simply being mislead by your brain's pattern recognition capabilities and everyday intuition if you think the former would discredit the latter.
Uncertainty relations are not at all fundamental .. they are marginal . If uncertainty was fundamental then things would be unknowable . Uncertainty is conditional and reducible . Rules and systems and structures are Fundamental .
-------------------- 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.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8232797 - 04/03/08 10:11 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
No, you seem to interpret the name a bit too dramatically. Lets call them for what these relations are: non-commutation relations between observables. It means that the order in which you perform observations is very important, whence the uncertainty in the state itself. And yes uncertainty relations are fundamental as supported by experiments and predictability of the model and yes things are unknowable at a certain scale, which is very small. This scale is defined by the quantum of action, the Plank's constant h. Averaging of many of these events at this scale give rise to knowledgeability at lower resolutions.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
#8233079 - 04/03/08 11:45 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Hmmm ...
Are these things also to be unknowable to themselves just because of scientific arrogance ? ..
Not in the religious sense but the philosophical sense .. would these things be unknowable to God ? ..
"Fundamental uncertainty" and "Unknowable knowledge" are on the face of it simply intellectual absurdities ..
Can this theory emerge out of the Grey Hubris zone of manufactured superimposed uncertainty and identify one single event/article that must be unknowable ?
-------------------- 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.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8233285 - 04/03/08 12:36 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Could you substantiate these general claims of yours ? Calling out well defined ideas "scientific arrogance" and "intellectual absurdities" doesn't lead very far into understanding.
There is no knowledge to dwell for into ill formulated questions based on your everyday intuition and false assumptions. Quantum uncertainties speaks of mutually incompatible observables, quantities whose knowledges step on each others feet. Just because you can think of something doesn't mean you can find a meaningful answer to it, which is pretty much what you seem to search for here, answers to vague questions belonging to your pool of personal epistemology.
Quote:
Are these things also to be unknowable to themselves just because of scientific arrogance ? ..
These things you speak for are the figments of your imagination. To observe something identified with a particle can be very misleading in thinking these particles exist in themselves with definite properties derived from the way we observed them, in one on one correspondence with what we observed. We already had a discussion about photon which revolved around the same issue. These strict structures you so much care for need not be the one you would expect from an everyday object.
Quote:
Not in the religious sense but the philosophical sense .. would these things be unknowable to God ? ..
Whatever your god is, which I guess here is of the pantheist specie, knowledge is still in the eye of the beholder and thus asking this kind of question is akin to ascribe human biases to nature.
Quote:
"Fundamental uncertainty" and "Unknowable knowledge" are on the face of it simply intellectual absurdities ..
Pretty general of a claim you made there without any background of what you mean or substantiation. Also plugging an oxymoron where there was none in no way clarify your stance. Fundamental uncertainties are there in physical quantities, yet we have pretty certain laws (to the extend of our current knowledge) to give us a clear quantitative evaluation of the amount of uncertainty there is.
Quote:
Can this theory emerge out of the Grey Hubris zone of manufactured superimposed uncertainty and identify one single event/article that must be unknowable ?
Seems like it does yes, minus "manufactured superimposed" which sounds more like fear of uncertainties rather than a clever social critic. These uncertainties are not in the "laws" themselves.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
#8235438 - 04/03/08 08:49 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deimya said: Could you substantiate these general claims of yours ? Calling out well defined ideas "scientific arrogance" and "intellectual absurdities" doesn't lead very far into understanding.
Do you want me to explain what "scientific" arrogance and "intellectual absurdity" means .. or are you familiar with the terms ?
as far as substantiating the "claims" i have made - i do not know what you mean .. what claim(s) in particular are you stuck on ?
Quote:
There is no knowledge to dwell for into ill formulated questions based on your everyday intuition and false assumptions.
You sure you dont want to call me a chink , wog , spick or nigger while your at it ? haha
Apparently , your everyday intuition and mine differ .. so what ? Everything differs .. identical is an intellectual absurdity .
Quote:
Quantum uncertainties speaks of mutually incompatible observables, quantities whose knowledges step on each others feet.
Rubbish .. you are painting pictures with words - conjuring up quantum particles that "speak to you" and that "have feet" and although classically entangled in synchronicity these articles these are also mutually incompatible ?? ..
Do you really really agree what you are writing ?
possible response being .. "Oh .. i didn't mean 'feet' as in feet - oh i didnt mean Speaking as in speaking .. oh i didnt mean mutually incompatible as in sharing no eigen space .."
So after that Hubris is removed what exactly did you mean to say but couldn't find the words ?
Quote:
Just because you can think of something doesn't mean you can find a meaningful answer to it,
So you dont understand the salient truth that "a properly formed question answers itself .." ?
Quote:
.. which is pretty much what you seem to search for here, answers to vague questions belonging to your pool of personal epistemology.
Is it allright if i mention that i dont have any idea what you are talking about with that phrase ? .. i dont even know if what you wrote it makes logical sense let alone that it comes across like the "vapor trail" of an inherently contradicted idea .
Quote:
Quote:
Are these things also to be unknowable to themselves just because of scientific arrogance ? ..
These things you speak for are the figments of your imagination. To observe something identified with a particle can be very misleading in thinking these particles exist in themselves with definite properties derived from the way we observed them, in one on one correspondence with what we observed.
Sure sure .. "These things you speak for are the figments of your imagination" .. do you work for the CIA ? You're not Dick Cheny are you .. because you give no certainty of what you refer to , and i am beginning to accept that you dont actually know and thats is why your psyche is wisely insisting on leading your paragraphs with such weak/corrupt declarative statements .
So for instance considering again at the plotted paths of these subatomic particles - you are claiming that these pathways do not bear any true significance to the actual paths .. or can you clarify exactly what your definite article " These things you speak for" relates to ?
Quote:
We already had a discussion about photon which revolved around the same issue. These strict structures you so much care for need not be the one you would expect from an everyday object.
You might consider "everyday objects" as strict structures but i dont .. And , Photons photons photons .. why are so many people so religiously bent-up over photons ? - me i prefer the Darker aspects where the greater powers reveal themselves . And i doubt in all sincerity that your previous discussion of photons to which you refer resolved anything of significance ..
Quote:
Quote:
Not in the religious sense but the philosophical sense .. would these things be unknowable to God ? ..
Whatever your god is, which I guess here is of the pantheist specie, knowledge is still in the eye of the beholder and thus asking this kind of question is akin to ascribe human biases to nature.
"Ascribing Human bias's to nature" ? .. I have a rather comprehensive grasp of language and comprehension but once more can you come out of this rather cloud of uncertainty you are cloaking all your comments with and tell us specifically what on earth (or beyond) are you writing about ? ..
Furthermore , you apparently cannot free your concept of an "all seeing, all knowing god" from religion ? .. You do understand the priciples of the "Law of minimum" .. perhaps you could enlist some logic philosophy into your language to free yourself from the stream of indefinite adjectives you use to describe definite articles .. ie to free yourself from manufactured uncertainty .
Quote:
Quote:
"Fundamental uncertainty" and "Unknowable knowledge" are on the face of it simply intellectual absurdities ..
Pretty general of a claim you made there without any background of what you mean or substantiation.
WTF does that mean .. you keep leading your propositions with absurdities .. I simply do not consider "pretty general of a claim" to be decent language at all .. Come on .. lift your game !!
Do you really think a thought like "unknowable knowledge" is at all intellectually decent ? .. because its not its absurd , and rather moronic
Maybe you can practice alchemy ,, but GIGO is also a rather universal intellectual law (Garbage in -Garbage out) And your are making declarations of uncertainty and knowledge that are garbage and thus any declarations you derive from them will be garbage too ..
Quote:
Also plugging an oxymoron where there was none in no way clarify your stance. Fundamental uncertainties are there in physical quantities
ok .. heres hoping you can save yourself .. tell us now .. declare it .. exactly what is the fundamental uncertainty in physical quantity you refer to .. are you discussing size shape position effect weight mass ..
Give me but one single clear example of Fundamental uncertainty in evidence to consider ..
An open shot .. im all ears
-------------------- 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 02:00 AM)
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8235502 - 04/03/08 09:04 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
.. yet we have pretty certain laws (to the extend of our current knowledge) to give us a clear quantitative evaluation of the amount of uncertainty there is.
Do you really have to multiply your uncertainties so ambigiously .. ? Its rather insightful that although you are heading towards a quantitative statement (ie to do with measure) you have to cover your intellectual ass with multiplied uncertainty ..
Quote:
Quote:
Can this theory emerge out of the Grey Hubris zone of manufactured superimposed uncertainty and identify one single event/article that must be unknowable ?
Seems like it does yes, minus "manufactured superimposed" which sounds more like fear of uncertainties rather than a clever social critic. These uncertainties are not in the "laws" themselves.
Goodness gracious .. you are discussing the very fabric of reality and how certain you are of the nature of it .. and you lead your statement with "seems like" .. i simply will not take such a statement seriously ..
Perhaps you may do better at being a seamstress ..
-------------------- 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.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8235553 - 04/03/08 09:15 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Dude wtf are you talking about? Scratch that, you dont know what you are talking about.
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8235559 - 04/03/08 09:16 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Ha, you are a funny guy to read. Why dont you simply just look at the derivation of the Uncertainty Principle and tell us what parts of it you disagree with? Id be more than happy to go over the derivation with you, so please take a look, and report back with what part you are having trouble with. Otherwise, its time for you to stop talking There is NO reason to continue this discussion with words, lets simply examine PURE math and the formulation of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle and decide which part of it you think is false. Otherwise you are just
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8236962 - 04/04/08 02:10 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thats exactly what i mean to thecrow , although you said it with better style ..
Just remember that all scientific formulae can be written in words of logical statement .. its just that scientific notation doesn't demonstrate the absurdities nearly so well as words do .
I hope you agree that all proper discussions (and mathematical formulae) should begin with a clear definition of terms ..
-------------------- 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8237009 - 04/04/08 02:36 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Btw in the meantime i think it would be useful for a few people to examine some of the original experimental data from the most significant experiments .. especially with the observation of the sequence and pattern of the sequence of electron markers .. they simply dont present as very random to me from the original data - and i am pretty sure the researchers themselves pondered deeply on the subject .
I think i have a link to the relevant video sections and will post - edit post them in this thread
cheers
-------------------- 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.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8237150 - 04/04/08 05:42 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Btw in the meantime i think it would be useful for a few people to examine some of the original experimental data from the most significant experiments .. especially with the observation of the sequence and pattern of the sequence of electron markers .. they simply dont present as very random to me from the original data - and i am pretty sure the researchers themselves pondered deeply on the subject .
This is what I mean by simple pattern recognition. Unless it is backed by at least an empirical law I don't see why anybody should take this seriously.
Quote:
I hope you agree that all proper discussions (and mathematical formulae) should begin with a clear definition of terms ..
I agree and we are quite a few guilty of no properly ascribing to this principle.
Quote:
Do you want me to explain what "scientific" arrogance and "intellectual absurdity" means .. or are you familiar with the terms ?
as far as substantiating the "claims" i have made - i do not know what you mean .. what claim(s) in particular are you stuck on ?
"I what sense are they arrogant" was my question, which I did not make clear. I spoke of fundamental uncertainties in the physical sense. Where did I speak of unknowable knowledge ?
Quote:
You sure you dont want to call me a chink , wog , spick or nigger while your at it ? haha
Apparently , your everyday intuition and mine differ .. so what ? Everything differs .. identical is an intellectual absurdity .
Yes I am. I was referring to anyone's everyday intuition and false assumptions, which is pretty common and shouldn't be taken as an insult. Why do you anyway ?
Quote:
Rubbish .. you are painting pictures with words - conjuring up quantum particles that "speak to you" and that "have feet" and although classically entangled in synchronicity these articles these are also mutually incompatible ?? ..
Do you really really agree what you are writing ?
possible response being .. "Oh .. i didn't mean 'feet' as in feet - oh i didnt mean Speaking as in speaking .. oh i didnt mean mutually incompatible as in sharing no eigen space .."
So after that Hubris is removed what exactly did you mean to say but couldn't find the words ?
We can only paint pictures with words as they serve as symbols and not much more. And I used these words as not to use formulas. I am sure you're smart enough to see through my personalism without getting supposedly so confused. Unfortunately I do not indeed always find the words as my english is mostly second hand and self-taught. Again I was simply referring to non-commuting quantities, the rest is much better written in TheCow's post.
Quote:
So you dont understand the salient truth that "a properly formed question answers itself .." ?
Apart from the anecdotic truth of it, no, I don't. I would be interesting to know what you think about it.
Quote:
Is it allright if i mention that i dont have any idea what you are talking about with that phrase ? .. i dont even know if what you wrote it makes logical sense let alone that it comes across like the "vapor trail" of an inherently contradicted idea .
I always have the feeling that you're never quite coming out with your ideas, only stating them as philosophical truths so obvious only idiots might think of questioning them. I guess this is where both sides in this discussion are standing anyway.
Quote:
and i am beginning to accept that you dont actually know and thats is why your psyche is wisely insisting on leading your paragraphs with such weak/corrupt declarative statements .
So for instance considering again at the plotted paths of these subatomic particles - you are claiming that these pathways do not bear any true significance to the actual paths .. or can you clarify exactly what your definite article " These things you speak for" relates to ?
My language limits me in embarrassing ways. But yes, regarding these paths, obviously these are the actual paths we measured, but had you not measured them there would be no way of knowing what the actual path is, both in the canonical and the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics.
Quote:
You might consider "everyday objects" as strict structures but i dont .. And , Photons photons photons .. why are so many people so religiously bent-up over photons ? - me i prefer the Darker aspects where the greater powers reveal themselves . And i doubt in all sincerity that your previous discussion of photons to which you refer resolved anything of significance ..
No, I had the impression you did ascribe structure in everyday objects to the microscopic world. And this photon discussion was clouded in the same misunderstandings indeed.
Quote:
"Ascribing Human bias's to nature" ? .. I have a rather comprehensive grasp of language and comprehension but once more can you come out of this rather cloud of uncertainty you are cloaking all your comments with and tell us specifically what on earth (or beyond) are you writing about ? ..
Ascribing as in projecting one's human expectations, assumptions, etc, into her/his interpretation of natural phenomena and reality. I don't share your background in philosophy of languages and I feel the same toward your comments. Each time you come with an explanation or clarification, I too only read more and more manufactured uncertainties.
Quote:
Furthermore , you apparently cannot free your concept of an "all seeing, all knowing god" from religion ? .. You do understand the priciples of the "Law of minimum" .. perhaps you could enlist some logic philosophy into your language to free yourself from the stream of indefinite adjectives you use to describe definite articles .. ie to free yourself from manufactured uncertainty .
Pantheism has nothing to do with an all seeing, all knowing god. In fact it is closer to naturalist atheism than anything else having a "-theism" in its name. Read it up.
Quote:
WTF does that mean .. you keep leading your propositions with absurdities .. I simply do not consider "pretty general of a claim" to be decent language at all .. Come on .. lift your game !!
I am asking for clarification as I have no idea wtf you did mean. Ironic isn't it ?
Quote:
Do you really think a thought like "unknowable knowledge" is at all intellectually decent ? .. because its not its absurd , and rather moronic
Refresh me, where did I speak of unknowable knowledge ?
Quote:
Maybe you can practice alchemy ,, but GIGO is also a rather universal intellectual law (Garbage in -Garbage out) And your are making declarations of uncertainty and knowledge that are garbage and thus any declarations you derive from them will be garbage too ..
Fair enough, but you'll have to clarify your language too as GIGO apply to everybody.
Quote:
Also plugging an oxymoron where there was none in no way clarify your stance. Fundamental uncertainties are there in physical quantities
ok .. heres hoping you can save yourself .. tell us now .. declare it .. exactly what is the fundamental uncertainty in physical quantity you refer to .. are you discussing size shape position effect weight mass ..
Give me but one single clear example of Fundamental uncertainty in evidence to consider ..
I simply referring to Heisenberg's non-commutation relation again yes, nothing more.
Quote:
An open shot .. im all ears 
I'm happy to hear that, but I fear I cannot elevate my game to yours.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8237434 - 04/04/08 08:55 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
cleeen said: Do you really have to multiply your uncertainties so ambigiously .. ? Its rather insightful that although you are heading towards a quantitative statement (ie to do with measure) you have to cover your intellectual ass with multiplied uncertainty ..
Ever heard of the scientific method ? Is there something wrong with covering my intellectual ass by stating one is pretty sure within certain bounds ? Please enlighten me such that I too can benefit from your cocksureness.
Quote:
Goodness gracious .. you are discussing the very fabric of reality and how certain you are of the nature of it .. and you lead your statement with "seems like" .. i simply will not take such a statement seriously ..
Perhaps you may do better at being a seamstress ..
Highbrow much ?
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: IAMenlightened]
#8240932 - 04/05/08 12:39 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
IAMenlightened said: makes me think of if a tree fell in the woods did it make a noise
I really cannot see why that question ever gained popularity let alone any credibility in science .
Great of you to bring it up tho IAMe ,
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 .
Makes me want to pick up the nearest large object and hurl it at their heads haha - can allways have them admit in court he only 50% hit me sir
btw have you seen the movie "Idiocracy" with Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph, Dax Shepard. Private Joe Bauers - highly reccomended **
-------------------- 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8240959 - 04/05/08 12:49 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Not just light but particles (mass) also! Why? Who knows why the universe is the way it is...
Look into the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to gain a little conceptual understanding of why you cannot observe something without effecting it. In short the only way to observe anything is to bounce shit off of it. With sight we bounce light off of things we see. But of course when you bounce light off of something, you effect it.
" See that first sentence/question DC ? The "Why" questions are by definition unanswerable .. to a degree yes but never fully possible .. try applying it to any important human event and you will never get an answer .. thousands of answers yes but all personal opinion .
What on the other hand is a far more useful question
I say whats that .. you say 2x4 .. If i had said why's and you would want to hit me with it .
How exactly is the Universe anyway ?
-------------------- 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8241004 - 04/05/08 01:03 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: What do you mean what changes is the setup of the experiment? The light does change if it is observed or not. You cannot measure light as a wave, when you measure it it collapses to a particle. 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.
John Bell showed this is the case in 1964. He proved that there are no hidden variables, and the fact that we dont know where the particle is before observation is not due to our ignorance but is a fact of nature. This eliminates the so called 'realist' interpretation, and leaves only the copenhagen or agnostic interpretations.
what was the realist interpretation ? .. that it was an experimental dependant result ? .. that is what i would say as well , but you have to be realistic about the word too . The realist interpretation would be that there was a mechanism involved but we didnt use and might not have yet the equiptment to decode it ..
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 ?
-------------------- 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 02:22 AM)
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
#8241019 - 04/05/08 01:09 AM (15 years, 9 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 
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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8241070 - 04/05/08 01:26 AM (15 years, 9 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: trendal]
#8241102 - 04/05/08 01:35 AM (15 years, 9 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8241123 - 04/05/08 01:41 AM (15 years, 9 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: MDMC]
#8241146 - 04/05/08 01:48 AM (15 years, 9 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)
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: xdzt]
#8241190 - 04/05/08 02:07 AM (15 years, 9 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. 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)
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



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, 9 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)
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8241856 - 04/05/08 09:29 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
 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
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
#8245071 - 04/06/08 12:03 AM (15 years, 9 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8245100 - 04/06/08 12:13 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheCow said:
 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
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.
|
DieCommie


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, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Dude, take your tweaked out rambling to OTD or the magical mystery forum. This was a good thread....
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8245501 - 04/06/08 04:33 AM (15 years, 9 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)
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



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, 9 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)
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8247291 - 04/06/08 04:46 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
cleeen said:
Quote:
TheCow said:
 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
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
|
maggotz


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, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the magical mystery forum.
awesome.
what happened to this thread? i no longer know what's going on.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



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, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Edited by deimya (04/06/08 06:06 PM)
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8249433 - 04/07/08 03:21 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
TheCow said:
Quote:
cleeen said:
Quote:
TheCow said:

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)
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
#8249448 - 04/07/08 03:34 AM (15 years, 9 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)
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



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, 9 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
#8249508 - 04/07/08 05:06 AM (15 years, 9 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)
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8249606 - 04/07/08 06:42 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
cleeen said:
Quote:
TheCow said:
 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
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 ?
That is your response to the derivation? Are you serious? Have you even looked at the derivation of the uncertainty principle and the derivation of quantum mechanics? Fuck
Yes this this is similar to the Heisenberg principle yet what you wrote has no physical significance. Maybe Im wasting my time here... Can you not understand the difference between an arbitrary equation with no physical backing to one with immense experimental and theoretical backing? If not...well come to OTD for the answer
Edited by TheCow (04/07/08 06:51 AM)
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8249625 - 04/07/08 07:05 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Just post the exact notation you have up you sleeve thecow ..
How am i supposed to guess from a google search which formulae you have in your mind ?
That being said the basic Heisenberg uncertainty relationship has a lot of direct experimental backing doesn't it ?
John Polkinghorne (Former Professor of Mathematical Physics , Trinity College Cambridge) refers another simple equation that the entire substance of Quantum physics can be derived from the Equation "change over time is related to the Energy of the system" .. they all start simple .. its not a fault .. its an attribute .

-------------------- 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 (04/07/08 07:47 AM)
|
deimya
tofu and monocle



Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8249744 - 04/07/08 08:24 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Your analysis is beyond ridiculous. I too could make anything up by looking at fluctuations. See my previous post on numerology for what I think of it. Sure you can see wonders in every mundane things, but since you started, Voltaire once said "A witty saying proves nothing".
This simple equation above is called Schrödinger equation and is the differential equation describing the dynamic of the wave function evolve in between measurements. You don't even need it to derive the uncertainty relation since the latter is a simple consequence of the mathematical structure of the Hilbert space used to model quantum stuff and in which the Schrödinger equation acts.
Concerning uncertainty, why don't you check the whole wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle and get a clue about it before posting anymore nonsense. Just the fact that you confuse the value themselves with the uncertainties related to the samples' distribution is a bit troubling.
Anyway, I'm over and out, I don't even know why I cared in the first place. I guess I'll never learn, silly me !
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
#8250285 - 04/07/08 11:26 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
So now you say the subject is Hilbert Space .. Jeepers you guys sure do have trouble stating simply what it is that you mean ..
Hilbert Space = multi dimensional linear algebra .. so what ? how does multi dimensional Linear space determine uncertainty .. you guys seem bent on proclaiming your own brilliance without ever justifying it ..
Just how exactly does multi dimensional Linear space necessarily determine Fundamental uncertainty .. ?
Just say it in words like a normal intelligent human since its such a simple concept .. go on .. one sentence should do it for how you put it over .. just stop all the outrage and prove your position because i just don't see anything of what you are purporting to exist there .. and you seem to find it impossible to utter .
And as for your comments regarding the electron deposit fluctuations being irrelevant to statistical significance .. i think you need to put away the books for a little bit and look at that again .. Why should patterns in any fluctuation in the Electron deposit be observable when you insist on random events .. let alone your complete mis-understanding of the difference between short term pattern operators and long term running averages .
I haven't made any particular analysis so i dont see why you claim it ridiculous .. i have just presented some data because i was asked to bring the discussion into terms of numbers and precision .
You should be embarrassed .. and clearly you dont have much interest in the results of actual Double slit Quantum experiment at all .
-------------------- 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 (04/07/08 11:35 AM)
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8251091 - 04/07/08 02:57 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
cleeen said: Just say it in words like a normal intelligent human since its such a simple concept .. go on .. one sentence should do it for how you put it over ..
Ha, so now you want words. Physics is math, if you do not understand the language there is no reason to have the discussion with you. Im not about to get into an argument with someone about Latin when I speak none of it. You need to learn the math, thats it, Im sorry but you fail at science and until you learn the tools necessary there is no reason to continue this discussion.
A Hilbert Space is an inner product space and is therefore useful in Quantum Mechanics. The derivation is a straightforward mathematical proof on the assumption that the two operators (the position and momentum operators) are as defined. If those two operators are in fact true in a physical sense then the uncertainty principle HAS to be real. If you want to argue with me that the operators are false, then go ahead. But I expect to see reasons why that is instead of you jerking off onto your keyboard. This is like arguing with a 4 year old, you have listed precisely ZERO reasons why the uncertainty principle is wrong. Yet you expect motherfuckers to take your ass seriously? Go back to the Mysticism forum , Im sure Middleman would love such an enlightened fellow. You guys can talk about how great the future is going to be with aliens and magic and dragons! Yes dragons! Have fun
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8253292 - 04/07/08 10:06 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
How come it is you then thecow who seems unwilling unable to put the mathematical proof here in this thread ..
How many times do i have to ask you to put it in here plain and simple so we can get going ?
Just cut and paste the primary derivation of uncertainty incluing all assumptions and then we can begin .
You write .. Quote:
The derivation is a straightforward mathematical proof on the assumption that the two operators (the position and momentum operators) are as defined. If those two operators are in fact true in a physical sense then the uncertainty principle HAS to be real.
But hey excuse me that isnt proof by any means .. you are just making an declaration .. where is the actual mathematical proof .. put it here in the thread .
What is the Definition of the (Position, Momentum) operators .. you say that this definition determines the uncertainty but you dont even declare what these operators are .
Seems to me that the operators will be something like (probability=P)
P(momentum) + P(position) = 1 or x+y=1
Sounds to me like you know the stuff backwards , so just post the primary proof of the uncertainty principle , which as we have now ascertained relates to the "assumption" that momentum and position are mutually uncertain ..
So post
1. the working definition of the operators
and more importantly of course the substance being ..
2. the actual proof (mathematical or experimental) that these operators are correct
Because yes i would like to argue that the operators are incorrectly defined as i keep repeating .. but as yet you havent suppled a proper working definition at all .
Just post the Primary Proof like i keep asking for .. State the defined nature of the Operators and the Proof that they are correct ..
-------------------- 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.
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8254641 - 04/08/08 08:31 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Im sorry man but you can go fuck yourself. The derivation has already been posted as a link to wikipedia. Do you realy think Im gonna try and type out math in a fucking forum box? Put down the crack pipe son, head over to wikipedias article on the motherfucker and read. The fact that you havent just shows you arent interested in arguing over the derivation, just abstract squabbles related to this discussion. Once you do read, post the 'few' lines that you have a problem with, and I will respond by explaining them. I dont have a problem writing down some math, but Im not going to take the time to try and figure out how to express the entire derivation in ASCII. Also an operator is not Probability(momentum) that is not what an operator is. You do not grasp the fundamentals of linear algebra so I am done with this thread. I won't explain to you the necessary math background for us to talk about the derivation. Also you refuse to read the fucking derivation, so I say Good day
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8254684 - 04/08/08 08:50 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> Im not going to take the time to try and figure out how to express the entire derivation in ASCII
Just use latex format: Code:
\Delta E = h\nu \frac{\(d^2u(r)}{dr^2}=\alpha^2u(r)
http://www.physicsforums.com/misc/howtolatex.pdf http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/contents.html
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Seuss]
#8255143 - 04/08/08 11:58 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Nice to see you Seuss ..
I wonder how on earth you were going to enter into algebra discussion if you cannot write the code thecow .. Water off a ducks back and all that . An excellent Devils Advocate tho i must say - well done .
Yet , all the bluff and bravado about having to talk in big pages of derivation are meaningless in the search for the seat of the "uncertainty principle" ..
The Heisenberg uncertainty principal (Px=Py<=1) is an experimental truth , easily depicting knowlwdge that cannot be determined . But the preachers of Uncertainty go further claiming this experimental uncertainty is but a case example of larger universal fundamental uncertainty .. or for a better term 'unknowable knowledge' .
Some 'experts' say the basis of the fundamental uncertainty is in the Schrödinger equation .. but as you can see from this image the equation itself proves nothing .

Other "experts" may claim say the Uncertainty is seated in the multi dimensional construction of Hilbert space itself .. but Hilbert space is just A 3D modeling system for vectors that is used by Quantum Scientists to construct models .. the short of it is that Axis on a graph do not determine uncertainty anymore than a 3D tripod built with matchsticks proves the uncertainty principle .
Quote:
The mathematical concept of a Hilbert space, named after the German mathematician David Hilbert, generalizes the notion of Euclidean space in a way that extends methods of vector algebra from the two-dimensional plane and three-dimensional space to infinite-dimensional spaces. In more formal terms, a Hilbert space is an inner product space — an abstract vector space in which distances and angles can be measured — which is "complete", meaning that if a sequence of vectors approaches a limit, then that limit is guaranteed to be in the space as well.
Surely no proof of fundamental uncertainty ..
We can go a bit deeper and into the Quaternions that are the Algebraic rules Hilbert Space uses .. rules like matrix operators that can for instance switch a vector from going straight ahead to sideways or sideways to straight up etc .. but these rules are just that expressions of vector transformations .. nothing about uncertainty there ..



The Author didnot try to make Quaternions into more than they were .. in fact he reduced them , making them more certain ..
Quote:
[Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Nov. 11, 1844, vol. 3 (1847), 1-16]
In the theory which Sir William Hamilton submitted to the Academy in November, 1843, the name quaternion was employed to denote a certain quadrinomial expression ...
The author .. has been enabled to present some of them in a clearer view, as regards their bearings on geometrical questions; and also to improve the algebraical method of applying them, or what may be called the CALCULUS OF QUATERNIONS. .. he has been induced to call the trinomial expression itself, as well as the line which it represents, a VECTOR.
We can go deeper and look into claims made that the uncertainty is itself due to Plank's constant .. the set of energy values stumbled onto by Plank as something of a noble cheat to make his formulas for other functions actually work out right .. ( essentially working backwards from a result to determine an input value -- i.e solving a equation ) - But why should the energy levels that energy packets are seen to display be able to prove uncertainty .. Plank's constant Energy levels are discrete and known .. very well known in fact ..

Just how can something that can be stated with a high degree of certainty be the seat of Fundamental Uncertainty ? .. simply put it cannot .. The planks constant itself is yet another red herring
So you dig deeper into it and it can be mentioned that The uncertainty is due to the fact that The energy quantum is a wave form connected to the "zero point field" and as a waveform it carries with it a Level of uncertainty that is fundamental ...
Quote:
The invisible field
Quantum science in the 20th century revealed the presence of an all-pervasive background sea of quantum energy in the universe. Cambridge University’s Dr. Harold Puthoff was one of the first to measure this energy of the universe. This energy was measured at zero degrees Kelvin, the absolute lowest possible temperature in the universe equal to minus 273 degrees Celsius. At this temperature according to Newtonian physics all molecular and atom movement should have ceased and no energy should be measured at all! Instead of finding no energy, as was expected, he found what he called a ‘seething cauldron’ of energy and henceforth it was given the name zero point energy (ZPE). ...
In quantum electrodynamics the background sea of quantum energy is now used to explain the uncertainty principle that was discovered by quantum physics, the unpredictable behaviour of subatomic particles.
.. but this is also a very weak argument for such a Hard Science . Take a single wave form packet frozen in time and therefore frozen in Space also .. just a thought experiment so we can introduce observation as if with the eye of God . A standing waveform in a unit section of space - in a universe of its own if you like, it has a velocity at this stage of simply Zero , a momentum of zero also , in this state its momentum is known . This standing waveform is in many ways resembling solid State matter .. we also know its position for it is where it is , and excluding other inputs as we have cleverly done in this example the Wave form will simply compress to leave a trace at the point of highest probability as designated exactly by the center of the probability distribution density .. So where is the uncertainty ? There is none to speak of in that example ..
So what we are left with ? .. the defense that Because all quantum waveforms are connected to the infinite mesh of reality and infinite reality is complex beyond our understanding that we have no way of determining what shape the probability curve any quantum packet will be navigating at any given moment in space .. That is to say the Fundamental determinant of the flux of probability curves at any moment is unpredictable because we have no idea what is modulating it .
Some people would like to seal it shut there , claiming with almost neurotic pathology that this huge , big , massively compounded complexity means that comprehension of probability curves is beyond possible understanding .. They claim - without proof - that events that combine to alter probabilities at any moment are Random .. And that it is this fundamental Randomness that affects the behavior of all quantum vectors and interactions and therefor in its compounded randomness it is unpredictable and uncertain .
But again No Proof of Random has been achieved . It has been ASSUMED . This is what Einstein disagreed with , and why he claimed that 'god' did not play dice with the universe ..
However note this .. Quantum effects apply to what has been called particles and bodies of particles as much as it does to energy packets . This is why most modern Quantum Physicists prefer to mention that all the problems associated with particle-wave duality disappear when all things are considered to be variants of Waveforms .. that putting proper values for waveforms into equations and discarding the notion of particle altogether determines the experimentally verifiable results .
So currently all conventional bodies of Mass are to be considered as variations of Standing waveforms structured with design etc but all obeying quantum waveform laws .
Yet still no determinant of Probability has been allocated .. For bodies of humans whose individual particles are always behaving as waveforms connected to the universal quantum Flux , the determinants of probability are similar to those determinants that determine the behavior of 'free' quantum energy packets such as visible light .
Similar in method to Shrodinger who had a clear view of the result and by simply enlisting the values that made the equation work properly determined quantum energy levels , the argument can be made and is almost irrefutable that the very things that determine probability in our own behavior also determine probability in all quantum events ..
So what does determine probability in our own experiences .. Surely it is intent .. It is intent that gets a person up a hill , out of bed , to work , intent that determines long hours of study and learning , intent intent intent .. always intent . Not always our own intent , but always in human behavior intent seems to guide , direct and govern .
The behavior of a quantum particle over time is determined by its energy .. but intent as we know can focus energy .. change the shape of the quantum packet as it were , throw a handful of dust and it might travel just a arms length and disperse .. but with intent do mold , shape and turn that handful of dust into a lump and the same mass can be flung 100 times as far and hit a target .. And what was the difference that determined the 100 times increase quantum behavior? .. it was intent .. And what determined the probability curve in this case ? .. intent did .
So what is a prime determinant of Quantum behavior? .. intent is .
Whether the quantum article is a 'liberated' energy packet, an atom or a structure comprised of many combined dynamic quantum particles such as a human body a ruling determinant of behavior is intent .
People can construct barriers to comprehending this by insisting on artificial division between the world we may think we live in and the quantum world , but that is simply not what science is telling us . Its not what wisdom tells us either .
Heads , hearts , spirits , mathematic and scientific truths are all reminding us that intent is a prime determinant of probability .
Now if this is at all true as we ourselves prove and reveal it to be every moment , the question remains .. whose intent is ruling the day .
Whose intent is strongest ? .. What type of intent is strongest ? .. these are important questions because these things determine probability .
But the answers are far from uncertain .
-------------------- 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 12:59 PM)
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8255208 - 04/08/08 12:27 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I guess I didnt make myself clear before. Im not going to bother responding to anything you claim until you fulfill your original promise of pointing out the flaws with the derivation. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle#Derivations
Im not even going to read your above post fully until you respond to the derivation. Lets just end this thread if you dont plan to do what you said you were going to, I wont add to it otherwise. Why would I post the derivation? Just please god answer me that, please. Its a click away, see I already know how full of shit you are. I deal with people like you on a regular basis, I know youve looked at the derivation and did not understand it. Now you want me to go through all the steps for you so you can try and get a handle on it. Which means that your original contention of the principle being wrong was based on absolutely nothing because you do not understand the math. What the fuck are you talking about quaternions for? Do you have any idea what those even are or why people use them? Either read the derivation and tell ME WHY IT IS FALSE or just dont bother responding to this thread anymore. If you make a claim that something is false, show me why you think it is false
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Seuss]
#8255216 - 04/08/08 12:31 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I dont know Latex that well but I figured thats what I would use once he pointed out which parts he was having trouble with. However its illogical to take the work to post the derivation when he literally just has to click a mouse button to see it
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8258526 - 04/09/08 02:36 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
oK .
My position is that the mathematical derivations are correct .. but that the assumptions they begin with are insufficient .
As you and i both know the steps of the derivation are entirely consistent with the math .. thus there is no point in discussing the 'validity' of the derivation algebra itself .
What is my point of interest is the declarative statements that comprise the fundamental starting position .. like in computer programming where firstly the classes of variables are declared .
How about this .. for a start: (verbatim copied from the Wikipedia article)
Quote:
Modern understanding
The Uncertainty Principle is a property of quantum states, corresponding to the statistical properties of measurement in quantum mechanics. To clarify this point, consider the Heisenberg microscope experiment again.
Suppose that a physicist has a way to prepare an electron in a particular quantum state. The physicist repeats this procedure 200 times, and for 100 times measures the position, and 100 times measures the momentum. The answers will be different in each of the first 100 and second 100 experiments, and they will cluster around some mean with some spread, measured by the standard deviation.
The standard deviation of the position times the standard deviation of the momentum is never less than hbar/2.
Yet the same example using a single electron determines no uncertainty .. let alone the std deviations that are based on the purposely Uncontrolled background quantum interactions .
It is not the behavior of the Electron that is in this case uncertain .. it is the lack of rigor in controlling the experimental conditions ..
There is no such uncertainty to a single electron , none can be proven .. the fundamental description of the electron in terms of a normalized average is thus unjustified .
Proper controls on the experimental variables will result in all 200 of the self same electrons having the exact same measurements for position and momentum .. this is logic . and in this improved experimental condition the std deviation will be zero .
Can you explain to me thecow why they are using hidden 'experimental uncertainty' to generate the suggested proof of 'fundamental uncertainty' ?
-------------------- 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.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8258557 - 04/09/08 03:17 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
what I understand the principle to mean is that their is no practical difference. You cannot have sufficient rigor in the protocol, cuz you can't determine one without affecting the other. Nevertheless, describe how you come to that conclusion.
How do you determine that their is no uncertainty in the measurement of the single electron? You can say you don't know the percision, but that's different than saying their is no uncertainty. Just cuz you get a number doesn't mean its meaningful.
Now I understand that some argue this is because their is actually no certainty in even a metaphysical sence as to the state of the particle, but we need not reach this position- which I believe is the accepted view, no?
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: johnm214]
#8258994 - 04/09/08 08:59 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
what I understand the principle to mean is that their is no practical difference. You cannot have sufficient rigor in the protocol, cuz you can't determine one without affecting the other. Nevertheless, describe how you come to that conclusion.
Yes that is the Practical uncertainty .. and you are right due to the rigor of the protocol .
But they go further and claim that the uncertainty is actual of the very metaphysical nature of the energy packet itself .. as if it were a thing half in this world and half in another world . They claim that it is not just out of our ability to get these measurements accurate today because of technology/protocols but that it will forever remain impossible because they have a deep understanding of the very nature of quantum energy .
Thing is that they dont know near as much as they think they do , and the proof they offer is not logically valid .
There is a word for it .. it is "Hubris" and it is the mistakes and other rubbish created in the mind due to the mistaken arrogance of thinking we know more than we do .
Quote:
How do you determine that their is no uncertainty in the measurement of the single electron? You can say you don't know the precision, but that's different than saying their is no uncertainty. Just cuz you get a number doesn't mean its meaningful.
Thing is they actually claim that it cannot be known ever , not ever ..
There will always be uncertainty in classic measurement .. the rulers we use can increase in precision a million fold but the uncertainty will simply shift over that many decimal places .. there will always be the element of uncertainty in measurement .
What Std txt book quantum physics says is that the uncertainty has nothing to do with the measurement .
They say the uncertainty will always be there never decreasing even as technology advances .. in a million million years no matter how advanced protocols can be the uncertainty will still be there . It like a God to them . Because it is eternal .. eternal fundamental uncertainty .. sounds a bit more like eternal suffering tho .
The thing is they attribute the uncertainty to the quantum energy/electron when it is not seated there .. the uncertainty is due to the Sum complexity of the Background quantum Field plus the experimental setup , including the information gathering protocol and whatever other variable we might not even have words for yet .
So yes the quantum energy has a discrete position .. referenced as the point of highest density of the waveform - that would be for instance like the centre point of this waveform animation .

And yes , the Quantum waveform has an effective discrete momentum being the direction and velocity vector of that floating centre point of highest probability .
So these discrete and complex numbers do metaphysically exist . Thats why to insist that these things knowable in themselves cannot be known is actually to present them .. or we could say force them onto the population them as "unknowable knowledge" .
Edited by cleeen (04/10/08 04:35 AM)
|
TheWall
DayTripper



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 101
Loc: BigEasy
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8266167 - 04/10/08 08:00 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm reading a book that one of the leading string therorsits wrote called "The Elegant Universe", and in the beggining of the book they give you a background of how normal physics works etc. And in part they are talking about how muons form out of pure nothing, just form in the fabric of space, and live for a few seconds, the self explode sending out particles. Well, in conclusion to that, they make a muons lifespand much longer by using a particle accelerator, sending it shy of light speed cauing its life span to be almost infinite. At any rate, qhwn you are in motion(speed)time is slowed down. Its a hard concept to understand, but its proven.
And as far as the observing argument goes. Say you have jim and slim, jim is going down the highway at light speed(299 792 458 m / s)(theoretical of course), and slim is down the road at a somewhat finsih line. As jim rides across that line at light speed, slim using a precise timer, will see how long it takes for the front of the car to the back of the car to go over the line. With doing that slim can get the length of the car. With solving that he can find the length of the car. When the car is sent from the factory, it is measured at 8 feet 9 inches. After slim gets his calculations, the car will be measured at lets say 8 feet and a millionth of a centimeter off. Why so? not only does time slow down, objects are shortend. I had to ask my physics teacher to explain this concept for me, really tripped my mind our for a while. Its crazy how these forces of nature are so weird. what causes them, everything. One day when TOE is figured out, then we will be able to truly advance into the universe.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheWall]
#8266376 - 04/10/08 08:34 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Ahhh, the thread was dieing and you resurrected it
Anyway, I read that book too. Its good stuff. If you want to post about relativity or string theory, try bumping another thread, or making your own.
This thread has been seriously crapped up by nonsense. Its a train wreak.
|
maggotz


Registered: 06/24/06
Posts: 7,539
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8266416 - 04/10/08 08:41 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i've been wanting to read that for some time now. anybody have it in pdf flavor?
|
TheWall
DayTripper



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 101
Loc: BigEasy
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8266748 - 04/10/08 09:54 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Ahhh, the thread was dieing and you resurrected it
Anyway, I read that book too. Its good stuff. If you want to post about relativity or string theory, try bumping another thread, or making your own.
This thread has been seriously crapped up by nonsense. Its a train wreak.
Yeah, I've been thinking about making a thread on the discussion. But I didnt want to take the time to lay it out and people flame/shit on it. This weekend I'll make a thread on it. but commie, do you have a background in physics, or just study it?
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheWall]
#8266893 - 04/10/08 10:24 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Im a physics major, almost done with my degree. But I am just an undergrad, so i am basically still physics noob sauce. There are a few here with real physics knowledge. Some of them posted a bunch in this thread (Ill let you guess who )
There was some thread I posted a bunch of shit about relativity in lately. I dont remember what it was. I think I was high when posting alot of it, so I dont know how coherent it was. 
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8268160 - 04/11/08 04:19 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Unfortunately for Heisenberg, developments in modern technology have allowed scientists to show that the path of a sub-atomic particle is very real. It is common to observe particle paths in high-energy physics experiments, where both the position and the velocity can be determined to within less than the uncertainty limit.
 A bubble chamber photograph showing the paths of charged particles in a magnetic field
Heisenberg defended his position against such evidence by saying that his uncertainty principle was only relevant to predicting the future. But he also said that “this knowledge of the past is of a purely speculative nature…It is a matter of personal belief whether such a calculation concerning the past history of the electron can be ascribed any physical reality or not."
-------------------- 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8275017 - 04/12/08 06:52 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Im a physics major, almost done with my degree. But I am just an undergrad, so i am basically still physics noob sauce. There are a few here with real physics knowledge. Some of them posted a bunch in this thread (Ill let you guess who )
There was some thread I posted a bunch of shit about relativity in lately. I dont remember what it was. I think I was high when posting alot of it, so I dont know how coherent it was. 
And the image i had of you was of a middle aged , bitter and prematurely crusty Lab technician .. except that most lab technicians i have met are more mature than your posts represent .
An undergrad physics major .. Bwahahhaha .. now it makes sense .. oh man thats really rich .. such a loud mouthed know it all bastard .. oh wow .. the arrogance of youth eh ? .. no point in trying to convince you of things that are intellectually and emotionally beyond your limited ability .. jeepers - what a toe rag you turned out to be !
-------------------- 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.
|
PilzeEssen


Registered: 12/24/07
Posts: 7,312
Loc: USA
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8275049 - 04/12/08 07:00 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
the whole experiment almost points to the universe as a whole, being aware, being conscious.
-------------------- "The soul has greater need of the ideal than of the real. It is by the real that we exist, it is by the ideal that we live." If you want to get a hold of me, my email address is in my profile. Just click on my screen name. I got banned from using private messages cause I didn't follow the rules...
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8275245 - 04/12/08 07:49 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Whats your educational background and profession?
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: PilzeEssen]
#8276205 - 04/13/08 12:41 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PilzeEssen said: the whole experiment almost points to the universe as a whole, being aware, being conscious.
Beautiful comment PilzeEssen ..
Some people act as if the 'Universe' (insert wording of your choice) should bend to their will without question or judgment , as if their 'human' intelligence or standing is so superior or rare or ever so precious .
But , as you say , taking the "universe" as conscious opens a whole lot of other aspects to consider .. In fact to higher beings or even beings in a different realms to us (the 'watchers' if you like) , the insulting ignorant arrogance of some people would be reason never to open doors to them , and never to engage with them .. a very wise and honorable strategy most surely .
Edited by cleeen (04/13/08 05:45 AM)
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
#8276207 - 04/13/08 12:42 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Whats your educational background and profession?
It is irrelevant to the topic . I dont rightly know your age DC , yet as we experience more of life it seems to me that we lay less attention to someones background (educational or professional) and more to the content of the messages they convey .
I have been a University student as well no doubt , and it is easy but quite wrong to associate achievements there directly to real world values .. and even tho i was really not susceptible to it myself (several reasons) I can attest that most all degree students look back on the content of their university learning and recognize it for being far less significant than they thought at the time while they were studying it.
I recall without much interest Undergraduate Physics courses i took more than 20 years ago , yet i recall with great interest the insights i gained from School physics years before that . When i was at school as a teenager we looked into quantum physics and reviewed the film content from the Johannsen double slit electron experiment .
The Quantum world actually makes a lot of intuitive sense to normal beings , and a background in Physics may well if anything blur the eye to recognizing some very important dimensions .
Sure the Particle accelerators etc for instance are great "engineering" feats but they aren't at all such significant physics achievements because the science involved is so simple .. i.e. crashing protons head on at full speed . The engineering makes it all possible , the physics of particle accelerators in the main is simple push and shove newtonian stuff . Its the technical engineering of the sensors and magnetic accelerators that is the watershed achievement .
Similarly the Atomic bomb development by the USA near the end of WWII was not seen by the great physics minds of the time as any great physics revelation .. but those same people and more saw it as a rather great engineering feat .
Thank you Annom for your post below .. i agree that there are better ways to construct a discussion .
Edited by cleeen (04/13/08 10:59 AM)
|
Annom
※※※※※※




Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8276658 - 04/13/08 05:25 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
|
TheWall
DayTripper



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 101
Loc: BigEasy
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Annom]
#8277206 - 04/13/08 11:07 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
cleeen. lol
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8277331 - 04/13/08 11:43 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
 haha, are you serious? You think particle accelerators can be explained with Newtonian physics? Holy fuck man, look into the Standard Model, my god is that shit out of control.
The nuclear bomb was considered an absurdly large leap forward in physics at the time. ha I wish I could meet you, Id find you such an absurd human being.
Pretty soon when I get bored enough Ill post some experimental evidence against all the shit you are saying, and provide a more rigorous explanation of why you are ridiculous.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8284910 - 04/14/08 11:29 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
haha, are you serious? You think particle accelerators can be explained with Newtonian physics? Holy fuck man, look into the Standard Model, my god is that shit out of control.
What part does your misunderstanding require clarification with thecow ? .. The acceleration at less than the speed of light ? .. is it that that particularly gives you difficulty ? ..
... or is it the holding a beam of photons in a magnetic field that gives you problems ?
The particle accelerator is just that it accelerates particles .. thats not quantum mechanics is it ? .. are you thinking straight or what ? .. how about you be a little less precious and declare the substance of your disagreement . The 'particle accelerators' are of course also 'particle colliders' .. would using the term 'collider' make it easier for you to get a grasp on what is going on ? ..
The magnetic field as a tube acts to accelerate the particles to the speed where the head to head impact of collision essentially breaks the structure into component pieces .. whats so quantum about that ?

The measurement of the particle components released by the collision are indeed technology .. Computers , sensors etc etc all tech engineering .
The particle colliding experiments are engineering feats and without the engineering and the engineers the physicists involved would be struggling to get close to a functional system environment .
Be as emotional with reality as much as you feel you need to be , but the truth is that the particle accelerators/colliders are constructed by engineers and technicians using materials and real world technology .. the particle accelerators/colliders are not quantum machines .. perhaps you should pay more respect to engineering .
Quote:
The nuclear bomb was considered an absurdly large leap forward in physics at the time.
No , Actually that is not even remotely true , you could revisit the material documents and timeline of history .
The atomic bomb is a device , the comprehensive physics theory that showed such energy could be released was historically present well before that .
When Einstein lodged his document to Roservelt in 1939 the Atomic bomb had not been created . That work began years later .


The actual practical construction of the Bomb was undertaken by a new engineering core of the military .


Simply put as a matter of historical record the physics theory was well known way before the Atomic bomb was built .. The engineering of the Atomic Bomb was the achievement .
As far as that engineering itself was concerned the record shows that many of the physicists were significantly incompetent in that regard as the duly appointed Head of Operations "Major General Lesley R. Grove" and others have commented .
Quote:
ha I wish I could meet you, Id find you such an absurd human being.
So consistently these content poor and emotionally rich comments you type are dominated by reference to irrationality . You would fare better i submit to look inwards towards the source of the absurdity you are living by .
-------------------- 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 (04/15/08 12:14 AM)
|
Taharka
The Root of the Problem

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 686
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8285575 - 04/15/08 04:41 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
cleeen said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: Whats your educational background and profession?
It is irrelevant to the topic .
Uh... not really. Especially if the last exposure you had to "contemporary" physics, besides your own readings, was an undergrad course 20 years ago.
Quote:
But , as you say , taking the "universe" as conscious opens a whole lot of other aspects to consider .. In fact to higher beings or even beings in a different realms to us (the 'watchers' if you like) , the insulting ignorant arrogance of some people would be reason never to open doors to them , and never to engage with them .. a very wise and honorable strategy most surely .
The existence of different realms and higher beings is still out of the bounds of science. You could say they are metaphysical, and untouchable by science as it is today. If that's the best explanation we have for the double-slit experiment, it's not a good explanation at all. And you can't use this experiment to justify the conclusion that there are other universes and higher beings.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Taharka]
#8285757 - 04/15/08 07:12 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Taharka said:
Quote:
cleeen said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: Whats your educational background and profession?
It is irrelevant to the topic .
Uh... not really. Especially if the last exposure you had to "contemporary" physics, besides your own readings, was an undergrad course 20 years ago.
"Uh .. not really "
Man thats a pathetic opener .
Drop the dumbass bullshit already .. the electron double slit experiment was conducted as a matter of record 20 plus years ago .. how about you prove the uselessness of your word Ta-Harka , by explaining the sophisticated insights that have been gleamed into the Electron double slit experiment in the last few decades ? .. its a friggen wave form experiment idiot !!
But hey go ahead and prove me wrong if you can .. just a short list of these wonderful insights of science that you believe are worth mentioning .. i bet you have none . What gets me is how basically misled and ignorant people like you are regarding what you at the same time profess such great knowledge on .. simply worthless
Point is that you cannot argue a point based on your own knowledge or insight because that shelf is empty .. but hey proove me wrong .. just mention a short list of insights that physics has gained over the last couple of decades into the electron double slit experiment ..
Quote:
The existence of different realms and higher beings is still out of the bounds of science. You could say they are metaphysical, and untouchable by science as it is today. If that's the best explanation we have for the double-slit experiment, it's not a good explanation at all. And you can't use this experiment to justify the conclusion that there are other universes and higher beings.
Again this is just bullshit .. its pathetic how screwed up so many of you are in the posts you make .. its like you are pathological liars or something ..
Have you readd up on contemporary theories of interdimensional membranes ?? .. nah of course not cause that is modern inter dimensional physics cosmology isn't it Taharka .. and you are ignorant arent you so thats a silly question ..
How about Dark matter and dark energy Taharka what are they but realms of other dimensions .. i mean are you guys diecommie thecow and taharka all just retatded or are you ignorant or what ?
I just dont get it .. its like discussing things with bowls of shit that think they are gormet dinners ..
not one of you DC TC and Tharka have made a enlightened or educated comment in reply to me yet .. all you can offer is crap .. in fact i think you are so friggen worthless i'm outta here .. i will leave you dip shit pretenders to your own devices .. can't see you overnight turning into anything of substance ..
pathetic .. just friggen pathetic ..
-------------------- 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.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8285778 - 04/15/08 07:25 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Taharka said:
Quote:
cleeen said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: Whats your educational background and profession?
It is irrelevant to the topic .
Uh... not really. Especially if the last exposure you had to "contemporary" physics, besides your own readings, was an undergrad course 20 years ago.
"Uh .. not really "
Man thats a pathetic opener .
Drop the dumbass bullshit already .. the electron double slit experiment was conducted as a matter of record 20 plus years ago .. how about you prove the uselessness of your word Ta-Harka , by explaining the sophisticated insights that have been gleamed into the Electron double slit experiment in the last few decades ? .. its a friggen wave form experiment idiot !!
But hey go ahead and prove me wrong if you can .. just a short list of these wonderful insights of science that you believe are worth mentioning .. i bet you have none . What gets me is how basically misled and ignorant people like you are regarding what you at the same time profess such great knowledge on .. simply worthless
Point is that you cannot argue a point based on your own knowledge or insight because that shelf is empty .. but hey proove me wrong .. just mention a short list of insights that physics has gained over the last couple of decades into the electron double slit experiment ..
Quote:
The existence of different realms and higher beings is still out of the bounds of science. You could say they are metaphysical, and untouchable by science as it is today. If that's the best explanation we have for the double-slit experiment, it's not a good explanation at all. And you can't use this experiment to justify the conclusion that there are other universes and higher beings.
Again this is just bullshit .. its pathetic how screwed up so many of you are in the posts you make .. its like you are pathological liars or something ..
Have you readd up on contemporary theories of interdimensional membranes ?? .. nah of course not cause that is modern inter dimensional physics cosmology isn't it Taharka .. and you are ignorant arent you so thats a silly question ..
How about Dark matter and dark energy Taharka what are they but realms of other dimensions .. i mean are you guys diecommie thecow and taharka all just retatded or are you ignorant or what ?
I just dont get it .. its like discussing things with bowls of shit that think they are gormet dinners ..
not one of you DC TC and Tharka have made a enlightened or educated comment in reply to me yet .. all you can offer is lies and crap .. in fact i think you are so friggen worthless i'm outta here .. i will leave you dip shit pretenders to your own devices .. can't see you overnight turning into anything of substance ..
pathetic .. just friggen pathetic ..
Excuse me while i go loose my password and get the fuck outta here so the low-lifes can go on praising eachothers pretense with out my continual objection .
-------------------- 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.
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8286224 - 04/15/08 10:29 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Alright let me just crack my Newtonian physics book open here, hmm interesting stuff it is, *searches for anything about magnetic fields or electricity*, hm not seeing it yet, oh but maybe you have that 'secret' Newtonian book. The one where Newton developed Maxwells equations then forgot to release them publicly. So first off your argument is wrong, as to quantum physics:
The whole point of the accelerator is for particle physics, there is no other point. Scientisits didnt just decide one day itd be cool to slam shit into other shit for no reason. And guess how scientists explain what happens when shit slams into other shit? Oh I know you know the answer good sir, but just take a minute:
Thats right, the standard model. What is the standard model? Why my good chap, it is a Quantum Field Theory. And go on, just guess how accurate the standard model is, wont guess? Well it has been shown to be extremely accurate at prediction, though it will get a good testing pretty soon when the new collider comes online. There are some problems with it such as the number of constants placed into it, but my point being, you cannot even begin to hope to begin to fucking explain particles interactions with Newtonian physics.
As to your argument that the atom bomb was simply an engineering feat, this is not accurate. I am an electrical engineer so believe me I like engineering, but we cannot take credit for the atom bomb. Sure there was a lot of engineering involved, but there was also a lot of physics.
" Having begun to wrest control of the uranium research from the National Bureau of Standards, the project heads began to accelerate the bomb project under the OSRD. Arthur Compton organized the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory in early 1942 to study plutonium and fission piles (primitive nuclear reactors), and asked theoretical physicist Robert Oppenheimer of the University of California, Berkeley to take over research on fast neutron calculations—key to calculations about critical mass and weapon detonation—from Gregory Breit. John Manley, a physicist at the Metallurgical Laboratory, was assigned to help Oppenheimer find answers by coordinating and contacting several experimental physics groups scattered across the country.
During the spring of 1942, Oppenheimer and Robert Serber of the University of Illinois worked on the problems of neutron diffusion (how neutrons moved in the chain reaction) and hydrodynamics (how the explosion produced by the chain reaction might behave). To review this work and the general theory of fission reactions, Oppenheimer convened a summer study at the University of California, Berkeley, in June 1942. Theorists Hans Bethe, John Van Vleck, Edward Teller, Felix Bloch, Emil Konopinski, Robert Serber, Stanley S. Frankel, and Eldred C. Nelson (the latter three all former students of Oppenheimer) quickly confirmed that a fission bomb was feasible. There were still many unknown factors in the development of a nuclear bomb, however, even though it was considered to be theoretically possible. The properties of pure uranium-235 were still relatively unknown, as were the properties of plutonium, a new element which had only been discovered in February 1941 by Glenn Seaborg and his team. Plutonium was the product of uranium-238 absorbing a neutron which had been emitted from a fissioning uranium-235 atom, and was thus able to be created in a nuclear reactor. But at this point no reactor had yet been built, so while plutonium was being pursued as an additional fissile substance, it was not yet to be relied upon. Only microgram quantities of plutonium existed at the time (produced from neutrons derived from reaction started in a cyclotron). A number of the different fission bomb assembly methods explored during the summer 1942 conference, later reproduced as drawings in The Los Alamos Primer. In the end, only the "gun" method (at top) and a more complicated variation of the "implosion" design would be used. At the bottom are "autocatalytic method" designs. A number of the different fission bomb assembly methods explored during the summer 1942 conference, later reproduced as drawings in The Los Alamos Primer. In the end, only the "gun" method (at top) and a more complicated variation of the "implosion" design would be used. At the bottom are "autocatalytic method" designs.
The scientists at the Berkeley conference determined that there were many possible ways of arranging the fissile material into a critical mass, the simplest being the shooting of a "cylindrical plug" into a sphere of "active material" with a "tamper"—dense material which would focus neutrons inward and keep the reacting mass together to increase its efficiency (this model "avoids fancy shapes", Serber would later write).[5] They also explored designs involving spheroids, a primitive form of "implosion" (suggested by Richard C. Tolman), and explored the speculative possibility of "autocatalytic methods" which would increase the efficiency of the bomb as it exploded.
Considering the idea of the fission bomb theoretically settled until more experimental data were available, the conference then turned in a different direction. Hungarian physicist Edward Teller pushed for discussion on an even more powerful bomb: the "Super", which would use the explosive force of a detonating fission bomb to ignite a fusion reaction in deuterium and tritium. This concept was based on studies of energy production in stars made by Hans Bethe before the war, and suggested as a possibility to Teller by Enrico Fermi not long before the conference. When the detonation wave from the fission bomb moved through the mixture of deuterium and tritium nuclei, these would fuse together to produce much more energy than fission could. But Bethe was skeptical. As Teller pushed hard for his "superbomb"—now usually referred to as a "hydrogen bomb"—proposing scheme after scheme, Bethe refuted each one. The fusion idea had to be put aside in order to concentrate on actually producing fission bombs."
There still were physics problems that had to be answered, now dont get me wrong. As an engineer I know that high level engineering research can also be classified as physics research. The lines blur a bit, though engineering research usually has an end goal in mind and is not just concerned about finding out random information because it has the possibility of advancing science. This is a silly argument however, and Im quite done with it
|
Taharka
The Root of the Problem

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 686
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8286620 - 04/15/08 12:01 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You're the one arrogant enough to belittle others and make claims based on "special" knowledge. So were exactly did you learn more about physics than everyone else?
Enlightened and educated ftw. Stuff your metaphysical bullshit up your ass.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Taharka]
#8287348 - 04/15/08 03:32 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Taharka said: You're the one arrogant enough to belittle others and make claims based on "special" knowledge. So were exactly did you learn more about physics than everyone else?
Enlightened and educated ftw. Stuff your metaphysical bullshit up your ass.
I agree that this is irrelevant. His background or education doesn't effect the validity or logic of his claims.
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: johnm214]
#8287388 - 04/15/08 03:38 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry you've stumbled into the wrong forum. If you are going to make a claim about the nature of reality (science) you better damn well know science.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8287709 - 04/15/08 04:52 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I do know science, but what I know, or what cleen knows, isn't the issue. The issue is the validity of the claims. Science is observation and extrapolation, not an oligarchy w/ decrees by educated men.
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: johnm214]
#8287758 - 04/15/08 05:01 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
True, but cleeen has shown himself to be unaware of science, he argues things by claiming that points of science are irrational, or that they make no sense to him logically. If he understood science he could make a case for why things are wrong in terms that make sense. His present approach is just to write lengthy paragraphs saying how wrong we all are without any basis.
Like the double slit experiment. He just said, yes theres a pattern there. He looks at one video and decides that quantum is wrong because some points appear to line up, (even though as I pointed out to him they might not lie on the same line at all). He just makes claims and wont back them up with any further investigation. Did he look at other similar experiments? apparently no. Did he investigate his claim that there is some underlying geometrical explanation? Nope. I picture him living somewhere in a basement in Queens sipping on a plastic carton of old McGregor's fine style country scotch beating a drum very softly while typing with the other hand
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
#8287802 - 04/15/08 05:14 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
well my statement shouldn't be construed as a defense of cleen's logic, it does strike me as an ad hoc analysis, and he certainly doesn't have persuasive evidence for his positions.
Just a pet peave of mine when pseudoscientist, not you- talking about laymen or whatnot, adopt stupid positions and claim its supported by some guy, but won't defend the position on its merits, instead appealing to the authority of some jackass. They give idiots phd's too (see: sociology)
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: johnm214]
#8287819 - 04/15/08 05:19 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I think its funny how he talked shit about my undergraduate eduaction and experience, then when I inquired about his he replied ...
Quote:
It is irrelevant to the topic .
|
CanadianKiwi
Stranger

Registered: 01/29/06
Posts: 23
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
#8387573 - 05/10/08 11:48 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
CLEEN can you contact me, I wanted to follow up with you re last years messages 
Thanks
|
thaddeus
newfolder

Registered: 12/20/08
Posts: 17
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: johnm214]
#10368467 - 05/20/09 07:17 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
whoops ..
was looking at one date too many
-------------------- A weed is a plant that has mastered every survival skill except for learning how to grow in rows.- Doug Larson
Edited by thaddeus (05/21/09 02:03 AM)
|
Newbie
User of semicolons.



Registered: 07/18/04
Posts: 24,710
Loc: SoCal
Last seen: 8 hours, 56 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: thaddeus]
#10369311 - 05/20/09 11:54 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
You must have learned quantum secrets in time travelling or something because this topic is a year old.
|
Beluga
Stranger
Registered: 08/14/22
Posts: 63
Last seen: 13 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: MDMC] 2
#28401290 - 07/20/23 12:21 AM (6 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
All these people arrogantly talking as if its just so silly to think consciousness has anything to do with it are frankly laughable. The men who created the field of quantum physics, they thought it was quite clear that consciousness itself causes the collapse of the wave function. It’s called the Copenhagen interpretation because that’s where Bohr, and Heisenberg, and all those guys used to live. Einstein didnt like it, but he never came up with any convincing refutation of it. You can find prominent physicists today discussing this simply on YouTube, their opinions congruent with Copenhagen. Sure, there are other theories on how it might work, but none are very convincing. If we knew the answer and it had been explained from a deterministic standpoint, then the unified theory uniting quantum mechanics and relativity would already be in our grasp. Simulation theory offers a reasonable explanation of it, as do the mystical traditions that view consciousness as primary, and see the universe as basically a dream (simulation) in the mind of God/us.
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,297
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 1 hour, 34 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The Double-Slit Experiment [Re: MDMC] 3
#28401695 - 07/20/23 11:45 AM (6 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
This is one of my favorite experiments of all time. Light is both a wave and a particle? How?! The experiment is affected just by observing it? Impossible! The implications of this unique experiment are truly fascinating.
A cool YouTube video detailing the history and application of the Double-Slit Experiment:
-------------------- "What you must understand is that your physical dimension affects everyone in the higher dimensions as well. All things are interconnected. All things are One. Therefore, if one dimension is broken or out of balance, then all other dimensions will experience repercussions." - Pleiadian Prophecy 2020 The New Golden Age by James Carwin PROJECT BLUE BOOK ANALYSIS! (312 pages!) | Psychedelics & UFOs | Ready to Contact UFOs? | The Source on Mushrooms | Trippy Gematrix | Dj TeknoLogical | Fentanyl Test Kits R.I.P. Big Worm || The Start of the Ascension Process was 2020. Welcome to the Next Great Era of Earth 🌎🌍🌏
  Oregon Eclipse Festival 2017 :: Aug 19th - 21st :: Pure Paradise   Very Effective LSA Extraction Tek | 💧 Advanced Cold Water LSA Extraction Method 💧 |  Mescajuana - Mescaline with Marijuana | DMT Dab Bongs | UFO Technology! Shpongle
     
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 7 minutes, 11 seconds
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The Double-Slit Experiment [Re: LogicaL Chaos] 1
#28401798 - 07/20/23 01:54 PM (6 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Is there the one showing light as a particle? I looked for it but didn't see one that seems to follow like with the water front scene.
Edited by syncro (07/20/23 05:30 PM)
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,297
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 1 hour, 34 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The Double-Slit Experiment [Re: syncro] 2
#28401799 - 07/20/23 01:56 PM (6 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Whoops!
Let me find one for ya.
Laser science anyone?
The Photoelectric Effect and Photon particles:
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 7 minutes, 11 seconds
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The Double-Slit Experiment [Re: LogicaL Chaos] 2
#28401859 - 07/20/23 02:57 PM (6 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Nice, photo electric effect refresher. This one shows the duality in the double slit with observer effect at 6:48.
This one brings light as the probability wave.
|
Ice9
3X Ban Lotto Champion



Registered: 03/20/14
Posts: 11,225
Loc: daterapeville,USA
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Beluga]
#28408854 - 07/26/23 06:45 AM (5 months, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Beluga said: All these people arrogantly talking as if its just so silly to think consciousness has anything to do with it are frankly laughable. The men who created the field of quantum physics, they thought it was quite clear that consciousness itself causes the collapse of the wave function. It’s called the Copenhagen interpretation because that’s where Bohr, and Heisenberg, and all those guys used to live. Einstein didnt like it, but he never came up with any convincing refutation of it. You can find prominent physicists today discussing this simply on YouTube, their opinions congruent with Copenhagen. Sure, there are other theories on how it might work, but none are very convincing. If we knew the answer and it had been explained from a deterministic standpoint, then the unified theory uniting quantum mechanics and relativity would already be in our grasp. Simulation theory offers a reasonable explanation of it, as do the mystical traditions that view consciousness as primary, and see the universe as basically a dream (simulation) in the mind of God/us.
This quote irks me. It is fundamentally a lie, as Heisenberg himself notes:
Quote:
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137
-------------------- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Brenard Shaw
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,372
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Ice9]
#28408933 - 07/26/23 08:56 AM (5 months, 30 days ago) |
|
|
I think Heisenberg is basically just saying when you observe a particle that is small enough it appears to be a wave When You observe it in one way and then a solid particle When You observe it in another way. Which seems totally contradictive to the laws of physics as we know them. But then it seems to me pretty much everything that you dive into with quantum physics seems totally contradictive to the world of physics as we know them. I don't think Heisenberg knows why Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead when you look in the box. He just knows it is and it's uncertain. Therefore = uncertainty principle.
I much prefer the fundamentals of quantum physics where most of the basis for what these principles are built on is how uncertain quantum physics behave to begin with. For example my big issue with black holes is all the very "certain" properties that people associate with black holes. Time dilation. Light can be trapped by gravity. Light has a universal speed limit but regardless in a black hole it can be sucked back into the singularity faster than the speed of light. The infinite properties of the black hole. Time being a fourth dimension that can be manipulated therefore space and time can be manipulated instead of time simply being a state of perception that the mind creates to show relative past and future when when such data perception is only that and time really doesn't exist in such a flow only as a state of perception.
I feel like so many fundamental things and pieces of science that humans have spent so long establishing are just totally broken when people start discussing black holes. This is primarily why I don't believe in black holes. There are changes in gravity way deep in space and there are points where light doesn't seem to get through something where it should be able to. This is everything we've base black holes on and then it turns into all this time dilation light affected by gravity unbroken speed limits being able to be broken classifying time as a fourth dimension. Etc etc etc. This is not how these physics work on Earth. This is not how gravity works on Earth. This is not how light works on Earth. This is not have time works on Earth. Yeah people have not only qualified that black holes are real they know everything about them.
To be uncertainties are the basic principles of building blocks of quantum physics to begin with. I've never disagreed with Heisenberg. He is certain about uncertainty and I think that's the most honest statement anyone can actually make about quantum physics.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
Ice9
3X Ban Lotto Champion



Registered: 03/20/14
Posts: 11,225
Loc: daterapeville,USA
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: imachavel] 1
#28412902 - 07/29/23 01:16 PM (5 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
No, what Heisenberg is saying is the observer can be an inanimate object such as a photomultiplier detector. Since the observer is inanimate, the observer has no subjective views and is not conscious, ergo, an observers subjective viewpoint and consciousness plays NO part in the observer effect.
Therefore, the statement I quoted that said
"The men who created the field of quantum physics, they thought it was quite clear that consciousness itself causes the collapse of the wave function."
is clearly an outright lie.
Uncertainty principle and observer effect are not the same thing and people in this thread keep conflating them.
-------------------- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Brenard Shaw
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,297
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 1 hour, 34 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Ice9] 1
#28413378 - 07/29/23 11:27 PM (5 months, 26 days ago) |
|
|
So the uncertainity principle involves the unpredictability of the quantum nature of wave-particles aka photons while the observer effect involves Human consciousness direct effect on photons at a quantum level?
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,372
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Ice9]
#28414168 - 07/30/23 03:52 PM (5 months, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I never knew that he actually had a machine that observed the very small particles. I thought it was all observed with the naked eye.
I'm not saying that he said that the particles changed because of the human perception of observing them. What he's saying is more that the particles observe in two forms at once almost as though there's a dead cat in the Box but when you observe the cat suddenly it seems to be alive. I know what I'm quoting is Schrodingers cat.
Obviously you can try the Double slit experiment on your own with a piece of cardboard you cut two slits across and then shine a flashlight through in a dark area.
Now as I said I know what he was referring to is the fact that the particles seem to be solid but then when you observe them they seem to be simply vibrating wavelengths. Not that it should be that phenomenally different in the fundamental principle if you have a machine observe the particles and not a person over the particles.
If the machine records the behavior of the particles and observes them and perceives them in the same way a person would with the same wave length a person would view them in it would make no difference.
In a way I kind of never thought of the statement is anything other than looking at a cloud and it looks solid but then you pass through it and realize that it's totally transparent. But as far as quantum physics goes Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty seems to be a really big deal with all the mathematical formulas and equations where the difference in How You observe the particle seems to make it undeterminable on what the particle actually is. A solid? A wavelength? Whereas with the cloud you see the cloud it looks solid but you pass through and you realize it's a gas. With the quantum particle we seem to be forever uncertain on why it appears as a solid in one form and a wavelength in the other
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
cozmyc
gentle modern ape


Registered: 06/20/21
Posts: 2,131
Last seen: 15 hours, 52 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: imachavel]
#28415319 - 07/31/23 04:51 PM (5 months, 25 days ago) |
|
|
We/machines can only view any particular wave in a single moment in time, which we perceive as a particle, is how I wrap my brain around it.
-------------------- You're conscious population 2 stardust ---------------------- and that's valuable
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,372
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cozmyc]
#28416620 - 08/01/23 07:03 PM (5 months, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah LOL see that's what I'm thinking the machine can't differentiate between the two things. It's going to perceive one or the other but not both. Only a human can perceive both. I don't know why I'm not saying it's because psychedelics bend space and time or anything like that. I'm just saying that that's how it is. A machine measures heat in the room or no heat in a room. Only a person can differentiate it being hot and cold at the same time.
While not inaccurate. It is perceptive. A person will see it being colder if the room they just came out of was warmer or warmer if the room they just came out of was colder. Perception is a very accurate way of looking at things. A person will see that subatomic particle as a wave or a particle based on a change in perception that we cannot clearly identify at this point.
We can identify why a room would feel hot or cold based on the previous room we were just in and understand that it's not just as simple as the actual temperature of the room but our perception on how we understand it. But a machine cannot do that. It would have be preprogrammed to identify a change that was input into the machine in it's engineered design by human who programmed it to be so.
That but machine will never be able to tell you why a subatomic particle appears to exist in both states. It will only measure the type of energy being there or not being there.
Perhaps using two different machines one that detects particles and one that detects waves would give you an identity for both things. But I only a person could identify and perceive it as being both at the same time. An unknown phenomenon. But probably no different than being able to identify hot and cold temperatures at the same time. Perhaps Quantum particles are just not something we can identify in two ways at the same time because we cannot understand why we perceive them as both based on our perceptive State the way we can with temperatures.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
Ice9
3X Ban Lotto Champion



Registered: 03/20/14
Posts: 11,225
Loc: daterapeville,USA
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: LogicaL Chaos] 2
#28417342 - 08/02/23 10:58 AM (5 months, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LogicaL Chaos said: So the uncertainity principle involves the unpredictability of the quantum nature of wave-particles aka photons while the observer effect involves Human consciousness direct effect on photons at a quantum level?
Uncertainty principle is the imprecision in knowing both the position and momentum of a particle. The more accurately one value is measured, the less accurate the other value. This is due to the wave particle duality.
Second part is wrong. Observer effect is the change in a system when observed (could be inanimate detector). Has nothing to do with a human or consciousness. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire, which causes some of the air to escape, thereby changing the pressure to observe it. Similarly, seeing non-luminous objects requires light hitting the object to cause it to reflect that light.
-------------------- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Brenard Shaw
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,297
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 1 hour, 34 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Ice9]
#28417588 - 08/02/23 03:20 PM (5 months, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Great explaination!
So the Observer Effect is similar to sampling a physical material. By sampling it, u take a small amount away from the total collection as well as potentially contaminating the material you are sampling with other materials (such as with agar and mycology for example).
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,372
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Ice9] 1
#28417969 - 08/02/23 10:07 PM (5 months, 23 days ago) |
|
|
We don't actually know what causes the particle to act like a wave though when we observe it. Like checking a tires pressure and putting in a reader to read it and letting some of the pressure out in the process is something that we understand is the reason that observing the tire pressure changes the tire pressure.
We have no idea why subatomic particle behaves like a particle until we observe it and then it behaves like a wave. Does it change because we're observing it? Or does the observation offer a different perspective?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,555
Loc: Utah
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: imachavel] 2
#28418210 - 08/03/23 04:15 AM (5 months, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Just to correct something, it's not actually observation like we're discussing here that causes the quantum state to collapse.
Measurement, even in the absence of any living observation, will do it too. The quantum state is actually incredibly fragile and basically something in physics will eventually require that the state collapses. Measurement, for example, doesn't actually mean a human has to measure it or anything. It's just that some physics outside the system in the superposition causes it to collapse.
It's actually impressively fragile and easy for the tiniest thing in physics to collapse it, which is why it's so hard to build a quantum computer. Even random electrical noise will cause it to collapse.
But here's the real mindfuck: there are no size limitations on the effect (although in practice because of how fragile the quantum state is, it's impossible to have it happen on a large scale, which again contributes to the difficulty in building a quantum computer). Still, in physics, you could technically have an entire room in a quantum superposition.
Let's say you had a person in that room, and a piece of radioactive material that decays at random. If it decays, it emits radiation which is detected by a sensor in that room, which administers the person 500ug of LSD. But because the decay is random, and because the entire room is in a quantum superposition (where every possibility inside is both happening and not happening simultaneously), the person inside is both tripping balls, and not tripping balls, and neither, and both, all at the same time.
This is real physics, I will remind you.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,372
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: nooneman] 1
#28418502 - 08/03/23 10:09 AM (5 months, 22 days ago) |
|
|
I wish this explained the quantum side of quantum computing more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
It is also leaving out that quantum computers are somewhat real and not just totally theoretical. But then again Fusion reactors are real and not just totally theoretical but they can't work for more than a millionth of a second to produce more energy than it takes to create the reaction. Not that I'm trying to compare Quantum Computing to that but quantum computers are definitely not "totally stabilized beyond prototype design and totally practical."
Well they are. As calculators. Quantum computers that exist and function as calculators are very real. But as like a machine that you would attached to all your other IO devices for sound and video and connect the read write drive that you could possibly partition and store in OS that allows the user to interface with opening and closing files and higher Network functions Etc. No very not real. You are able to use them as super calculators and theoretically that means that they could be super processors but a quantum computer still needs a person or an actual computer of regular sort to input the decisions for the quantum computer to make the calculations.
You know the analogy of the person inside both tripping balls and not tripping balls and neither in both at the same time sounds very much like what Buddha said of the mind and the body.
He said when a person meditates for years and years and observes physical Sensations down to the subtlest degree without gross and pure emotions clouding the perceptions it appears that the mind and body both seem to exist and not exist and neither and both the same time.
But he said what's really happening is it the true state of mind and matter is not existence. It only exists as wavelength. I mean he actually said this the actual existence of the mind and body is simply wavelengths. Because these two states of existence mind and physical properties of the universe exist and don't exist as wavelengths so quickly in a way you cannot even measure phasing in and out of existence at a speed of like trillions upon trillions of times per second the human mind can only observe the things as existing and not existing and both and neither at the same time.
But it's neither. Subatomic particles exist as waves. We are lucky to have a glimpse into something that exists and doesn't exist so quickly that we are actually able to observe the existible state. I do believe the existable state is not real.
This is a lot of why I don't think black holes exist. I know I know I know now I'm jumping off onto some totally entirely different topic. We come up with the existence of areas in space or light doesn't seem to pass through but it seems to pass through in other areas. We can't simply deem it as there's a cloud of dust out there that's obscure in the light so we come up with this idea based on other mathematical formulas that:
Possibly out in space is something that never happens before. In massive stars when no matter how much the gravity increases the density that does not relatively increase the gravity only the gravity increases the density at some point if a star collapses it creates things like breaking the speed limit of light time dilation and infinite properties of density and gravity. Here on Earth no such things occur. Gravity and density seem to have some limit just like the speed limit of light and time does not dilate. But because of MATH it looks like suddenly all this stuff does exist. Gravity will become stronger with density and not just the other way around. Time is not simply a state of perception of the difference between things that will happen and things that have happened created by the human mind. You can even dilate time. You can break the speed limit of light. And to an almost infinite Factor. Even though we can't measure any of that stuff here on Earth and such.
To me the idea of black hole is the kind of thing that would disprove the very principles of quantum mechanics and make people that would otherwise believe in quantum mechanics think it's a bunch of garbage. But what has quantum mechanics given us? The formula for nuclear fission and nuclear fusion and Quantum States. It is helped us discover the very Factory for creating larger atoms and therefore giving us more than just one atom on the periodic table is in the birthplace of stars. It is helped us figure out that certain Stars can become a neutron soup. It has helped us discover the existence of a field of antimatter that exists alongside matter. It's also helped us discover that the practicality of creating energy from antimatter or a bomb from antimatter is so unlikely because it is so hard to isolate and exists in such rare form that it only exists really in a billionth of a second long enough to be eliminated by its collision with actual matter to the point where if you were to actually scrape up all of the existing antimatter that existed in the world within the next 24 hours and it wasn't able to self annihilate itself you only have about a millions of a grain of sands worth and well that would be very powerful would be enough to power a car for maybe 24 hours or blow up an entire city block you cannot at this state in human history isolate enough to power a Starship or compete with the atom bomb. But that it's so powerful that a marbles worth of it could blow up 10 times more powerful than the largest hydrogen bomb we've ever created.
I think to the casual observer type person this type of stuff all seems like Star Trek. Why would an average person like me be able to argue that some of it is totally applicable in a practical way another aspect of it is indeed just horseshit Star Trek theoretical type stuff? It's simply a realm of things that make up our existence that we cannot measure with our everyday senses. That's all it is. We have to get micro on a scale to explain things that are so macro on a scale that it just doesn't seem like we can in some practical sense. Just as a person cannot count to a million or a billion or a trillion or a quadrillion or a billion times a billion on one hand and needs a pencil and a piece of paper to measure such things. So quantum physics just sort of exists in a way where we are measuring things that happen and ultimately exponentially small form in ultimately exponentially rapid time and we have to apply it on an everyday level because this is the fundamentals of how our world exists.
No need to get all nonsense Star Trek about it though and start coming up with garbage like black holes. At least that's the way I see it
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
|