What's inside the box?

[disillusioned]

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Schrodinger's cat and almost every aspect of quantum mechanics, based upon mainstream theory and interpretations, does not make sense. As you said, it is simply a statistical system that works in the quantum world. I also agree with you in that almost every aspect of modern physics ultimately fails in its goal to make sense of the universe. This, however, does not mean that the universe is necessarily difficult to understand. I think it just means that the explanations of the universe based upon present theory do not make sense.

 

I don't agree with what it seems you are saying.

 

When I say that physics ultimately fails in its goal to make sense of the universe,  I mean that it never finishes the job. You seem to think that it doesn't even get started.

 

I also disagree that Schrodinger's cat does not make sense. It isn't intuitive, but it is comprehensible. 

 

I do agree that the universe isn't necessarily difficult to understand. It might be fundamentally simple. I just don't see any reason to think that it actually is.

[pantheory]

18 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

I don't agree with what it seems you are saying.

 

When I say that physics ultimately fails in its goal to make sense of the universe,  I mean that it never finishes the job. You seem to think that it doesn't even get started.

 

I also disagree that Schrodinger's cat does not make sense. It isn't intuitive, but it is comprehensible. 

 

I do agree that the universe isn't necessarily difficult to understand. It might be fundamentally simple. I just don't see any reason to think that it actually is.

 

Schrodinger invented his cat to show how stupid he thought the interpretations of QM were in his day, specifically the Copenhagen interpretation, and the belief that something does not have a definite state of reality unless we look at it.  Schrodinger adhered to the wave theory of particles and light and invented the wave equations they use today. He was also very handy with the ladies, a very interesting guy and scientist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger

 

(your quote)

 

"I do agree that the universe isn't necessarily difficult to understand. It might be fundamentally simple. I just don't see any reason to think that it actually is.

 

Thanks for you understanding' this was the point I was trying to make.

 

As to an understanding of the universe as a whole, I believe they have conducted many great experiments, many of which have simply been misinterpreted IMO. Because of these experiments and when interpreted correctly, the universe is relatively simple to understand in all of its parts IMO.

 

As I have mentioned, I am a theorist in physics and have written books concerning the simplicity of the universe and its ease of understanding; the primary one is called the Pan Theory. it has many editions some having different titles, the last being 2008.  The theory also has unique equations and technical explanations for scientists and anyone interested. A brief description of it can be found in the link below; scan down to the Pan Theory.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

 

A complete description of the theory and the book itself can be read on the internet (2008 edition, link below) and a new internet edition is planned for the coming year or so. The only available hard or soft cover copies that  I know of can be found in my attic

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

Another book I co-authored that is in print is called "Cosmology that contradicts the Big Bang model." I can't find a link to it but below is a link to the technical paper within the book, and a link to its press release below that.

 

https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/problems-with-big-bang-cosmology-300107094.html

 

 

 

[pantheory]

On 7/18/2020 at 9:36 PM, midniterider said:

Ok, thanks for all that. So is the basic premise of the experiment with the detectors flawed if they mostly decide to go through the detector a certain way? 

 

No, I don't think so. I believe as a guide to this and most related experiments, they had the theory of QM  in mind. In the case of the double slit experiment, I don't think it clouded the results of the experiment, only its incorrect interpretation.

[midniterider]

13 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

In the double slit experiment with light, the interference pattern produced is easy to understand based upon the wave theory of light and such explanation is not in dispute. But when you break light down to individual photons and direct the photons to just one of the two slits, an interference pattern is still produced.

 

The explanation I adhere to for the double slit experiment is quite simple. A photo is part of a light wave. As a photon goes through one slit, the light wave goes through both slits and interferes with the photons so that an interference pattern is produced. The same thing happens with electrons. As an electron also produces waves in the background field. These waves are called De Broglie waves, also called matter waves. As the electron spins in the physical background fieldm it produces waves. The electron goes through just one slit but its waves go through both slits. The results is also an interference pattern of electron impacts.

 

 

 

I understand how the light moves through the slits and causes an interference pattern. 

 

But there's more to the double slit experiment, right? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOcPHOJ7GAQ

 

About 4:10 into the video is where a detector is placed at one of the slits ...and the interference pattern now becomes 2 vertical bars instead. You're onboard with that result, right?  

 

What parts of this 7 minute video do you agree or disagree with...if you feel like continuing with this silliness.

 

I'm not that interested in the delayed choice quantum eraser part of it yet. But feel free to comment if you like. 

 

Anyway, take care

[pantheory]

On 7/21/2020 at 12:36 PM, midniterider said:

 

I understand how the light moves through the slits and causes an interference pattern. 

 

But there's more to the double slit experiment, right? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOcPHOJ7GAQ

 

About 4:10 into the video is where a detector is placed at one of the slits ...and the interference pattern now becomes 2 vertical bars instead. You're onboard with that result, right?  

 

What parts of this 7 minute video do you agree or disagree with...if you feel like continuing with this silliness.

 

I'm not that interested in the delayed choice quantum eraser part of it yet. But feel free to comment if you like. 

 

Anyway, take care

 

Yeah midniterider, I agree with it all. Like most experiments, the experiment itself is not the problem; the problem is simply its misinterpretation. I'll go over the details again. It's all simple stuff that is easy to understand IMO once one is explained the correct details.of it.

 

First light goes through both slits and an interference pattern is produced on the back screen showing light is a wave, as you understand. This has never been argued and is the mainstream interpretation. Then light goes through slits just one at a time. A photon goes through just one slit but the light wave that accompanies the photon goes through both slits and interferes with the photon going through just one slit which also creates an interference pattern. As I said before, they also have done this experiment with electrons.  An electrons are directed towards both slits going through each slit one at a time. As an electron goes through a single slit, its waves, called De Broglie waves (matter waves), go through both slits. The waves interfere with the electrons and themselves and an interference pattern is also produced. No problem, easy to understand; right? Waves interfere with the path of particles. The last aspect of the experiment is when they put a detector over one slit. This detector can tell when a photon or electron goes through that particular slit. As the video announcer said, when you do this you are bounding something off the particle to know if it is there. When you do this the wave collapses. This is not a probability wave as they think it is in QM. These are real waves like ocean waves in the background field. Waves will quickly start up again after the particle is observed but not soon enough before particle detection occurs on the back screen since the particle and wave are traveling at or near the speed of light, Because the wave regeneration does not  happen soon enough to interfere with the photon or electron, there will be no interference pattern.

 

It is understandable that they cannot understand the latter aspects of this experiment since real waves in a background field would be contrary to both quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.

 

The misinterpretation in QM IMO relates to not understanding that these waves are real physical waves in the background field and that light consists of particles within waves, and that matter waves accompany their particles as Shroedinger and De Broglie understood. Once these aspects of the experiment are understood and realized then every aspect of the experiment seems easy to understand. What do you think after this explanation? Does it now make more sense in your opinion?

[midniterider]

13 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yeah, I agree with it all. Like most experiments, the experiment itself is not the problem, the problem is simply the misinterpretation of it. I'll go over the details again, It's all simple stuff that is easy to understand IMO, even though he said it's not.

 

First light goes through both slits showing light is a wave. This has never been argued. Then light is directed toward one slit. A photon goes through one slit but the wave that accompanies it goes through both slits and interferes with a photon going through just one slit also creating the interference pattern. As I said before, they also have done this experiment with electrons. An electron is directed toward one slit but both slits all open. As the electron goes through a single slit its wave, called De Broglie waves (matter waves) go through both slits. The waves interfere with the electrons and an interference pattern is also produced. No problem, easy to understand; waves interfere with particles. The last aspect of the experiment is when they put a detector over one slit. This detector can tell when a photon goes through that particular slit. As he said, when you do this you are bounding something off the particle to know if it is there. When you do this the wave naturally collapses. This is a real wave like an ocean wave. The wave will start up again after the particle is observed but not soon enough before particle detection since the particle and wave are traveling at the speed of light, Because there is no wave soon enough to interfere with the photon or electron, there would be no interference pattern.

 

The misinterpretation in QM relates to not understanding that these waves are real, physical waves in the background field. Once this is understood and realized every aspect of the experiment seems easy to understand. What do you think after this explanation? Does it now make sense to you?

 

I see what you're saying. This article https://phys.org/news/2011-01-which-way-detector-mystery-double-slit.html also suggests that inserting different filters to one of the slits controls the scatter pattern of electrons which can result in varying levels of an interference pattern, from zero to max.

 

Thanks for all that.