Jump to content

Double Slit Experiment: the actual science.


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

We may as well have a discussion on record of what this experiment (and related experiments) actually entails as a more serious, science minded discussion: 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We may as well have a discussion on record of what this experiment (and related experiments) actually entails as a more serious, science minded discussion:     

Walter, I'd like a Coors Light and a basket of wings.

Posted Images

I always have a hard time figuring out the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This one seems good too. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 9:45 AM, midniterider said:

I always have a hard time figuring out the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. 

Yeah, it’s impossible if one tries to follow mainstream interpretations of these experiments since there is no logic to them. That’s why physicists call the observed effects unbelievable.  But there are many other non-mainstream interpretations of these experiments that very few have ever heard of.   The interpretation that I adhere to involves a background field, an aether of sorts. Today there are many known and theorized background fields.  The most well-known of these has been observed for 70 years now and is called the Zero-point-field, which is known to consist of virtual particles and their related energy. The other theorized field is called the Higgs field which was recently claimed to exist.  And there are many other theorized background fields such as gravitons, quantum foam, the quantum substrate, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

According to the interpretation that I will explain, light would be a field wave produced by radiating atoms and molecules. Accordingly these waves would be physical like ocean waves but 3D rather than 2D. This field would be made up of string, or spring-like non-matter particles. As these physical waves would move through the field they interact with field particulates of the both field and wave particles to form temporary non-matter engagements. We call these engagements photons which this interpretation would call temporary particles. If these photons just lasted one second they could go around the Earth 7 times at the speed of light.

The double-slit experiment was invented by Thomas Young of England and first conducted in 1801. His interpretation of the experiment was a type of proof that light was a wave showing the wave pattern on a screen. The book written about him was called “The last man who knew everything” :)

Back to the double slit experiment:  In the double slit experiment in its simplest form, according to this interpretation light waves go through both slits when a single photon goes through just one slit. On the other side of the slit the waves going through both slits interfere with the particle and each other producing the observed interference pattern.  When physicists try to observe which slit the photon is going through, by their detection device they disrupt the physical wave so there would be no wave on the exit side of the slit to produce an interference pattern.

The problem is both in the understanding and interpretation of the experiment based upon a valid understanding of reality which mainstream quantum physicists do not have IMO.

The above experiment is more complicated but can be totally understood upon the realization that there is a background field involved, and that light can be both a particle and wave at the same time.  Detection of the wave by an instrument of some kind will cause the physical wave to collapse and only the photon-particle could remain. Accordingly all of reality is simple like this, only interpretations of experiments, observations, and reality are sometimes misunderstood. In mainstream physics today there are many wrong theories involving many misunderstandings of reality IMO.

Questions?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum physics has to reckon with the fact that they are dealing with such a small scale that you cannot disregard the effect of the observer from the system being observed. The equations describe the evolution of a probability density field wave, and the practical interpretation is basically a statistical one: if enough observations are made and you plot the distribution of observations, the distribution is reproduced by the wave theory of quantum mechanics.

 

The relationship of the observer to the system is often described briefly as causing a 'collapse of the wave function' which is to say that at the moment of observation the wave collapses to a single spike at the value that was measured. The reason why this collapse happens is really left in the open; it's more of an ad-hoc deduction based on the simple fact that once measured, the measured quantity is known specifically. I vaguely remember listening to a talk by a theoretical physicist who believed that the wave-function collapse was a physical mechanism involving a classical system (the detector) interacting with the quantum system (the particle) and that the collapse should be described and modeled explicitly as such. I don't know if he was right but it was an interesting idea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual science of this and other double slit experiments is the design, building, and set-up of the experiment. The design and interpretation of the experiment is usually based upon quantum theory. If the theory is wrong then the interpretations of the experiment will also likely be wrong. Once in a while when surprises happen in an experiment theory can be forced to change to accommodate the new observations with a new interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

 

Another addition to the series from the OP. How things like the double slit experiment applies to a deterministic universe: 

 

 

 

Back to that pesky "free will" versus deterministic issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pantheory said:

Yeah, it’s impossible if one tries to follow mainstream interpretations of these experiments since there is no logic to them. That’s why physicists call the observed effects unbelievable.  But there are many other non-mainstream interpretations of these experiments that very few have ever heard of.   The interpretation that I adhere to involves a background field, an aether of sorts. Today there are many known and theorized background fields.  The most well-known of these has been observed for 70 years now and is called the Zero-point-field, which is known to consist of virtual particles and their related energy. The other theorized field is called the Higgs field which was recently claimed to exist.  And there are many other theorized background fields such as gravitons, quantum foam, the quantum substrate, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

According to the interpretation that I will explain, light would be a field wave produced by radiating atoms and molecules. Accordingly these waves would be physical like ocean waves but 3D rather than 2D. This field would be made up of string, or spring-like non-matter particles. As these physical waves would move through the field they interact with field particulates of the both field and wave particles to form temporary non-matter engagements. We call these engagements photons which this interpretation would call temporary particles. If these photons just lasted one second they could go around the Earth 7 times at the speed of light.

The double-slit experiment was invented by Thomas Young of England and first conducted in 1801. His interpretation of the experiment was a type of proof that light was a wave showing the wave pattern on a screen. The book written about him was called “The last man who knew everything” :)

Back to the double slit experiment:  In the double slit experiment in its simplest form, according to this interpretation light waves go through both slits but a single photon can go through just one slit. On the other side of the slit the waves going through both slits interfere with the particles and each other going through just one of the slits which produces the observed interference pattern.  When physicists try to observe which slit the photon is going through, by their detection device they disrupt the physical wave so there would be no wave on the exit side of the slit to produce an interference pattern.

The problem is both in the understanding and interpretation of the experiment based upon a valid understanding of reality which mainstream quantum physicists do not have IMO.

The above experiment is more complicated but can be totally understood upon the realization that there is a background field involved, and that light can be both a particle and wave at the same time.  Detection of the wave by an instrument of some kind will cause the physical wave to collapse and only the photon-particle could remain. Accordingly all of reality is simple like this, only interpretations of experiments, observations, and reality are sometimes misunderstood. In mainstream physics today there are many wrong theories involving many misunderstandings of reality IMO.

Questions?

 

 

 

 

Yes, does retroactive causation occur in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? Or are the experimenters just misinterpreting the result?

 

Thanks for your explanation above as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, midniterider said:

 

Yes, does retroactive causation occur in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? Or are the experimenters just misinterpreting the result? 

edit: Is a background field a hidden variable?

 

Thanks for your explanation above as well. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Yes, does retroactive causation occur in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? Or are the experimenters just misinterpreting the result?

 

Thanks for your explanation above as well. 

 

no, no retroactive causation. Yes just misinterpreted. To be correctly interpreted IMO they would have to interpret the experiment based upon another theory, contrary to mainstream quantum mechanics. Accordingly the understanding of it is not complicated based upon the understandings of it that I described above. There you will read that light is both a particle and a wave, both at the same time. Secondly there is a background field where the physical light waves are formed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

 

no, no retroactive causation. Yes just misinterpreted. To be correctly interpreted IMO they would have to interpret the experiment based upon another theory, contrary to mainstream quantum mechanics. Accordingly the understanding of it is not complicated based upon the understandings of it that I described above. There you will read that light is both a particle and a wave, both at the same time. Secondly there is a background field where the physical light waves are formed.

 

 

So why do you suppose mainstream QM intrepretations are of the 'woo' sort? It seems like most science people would reject any notion of retro causation or consciousness/observation collapsing the waveform, etc etc. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

I feel like this is a situation where mainstream QM really should be questioned. The truth is probably much more simplistic than all of the complexities that people run off with. The complexities could well red flag the mainstream interpretations as veering off course from the simplest explanation. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

So why do you suppose mainstream QM interpretations are of the 'woo' sort? It seems like most science people would reject any notion of retro causation or consciousness/observation collapsing the waveform, etc etc. 

 

 

Your post has two parts to it. I will answer the question first, and of course you know that my explanations are mostly not mainstream theory. 

 

"So why do you suppose mainstream QM interpretations are of the 'woo' sort?"

 

That's also a good question. I believe the main answer goes back more than a hundred years to Michelson-Morley's experiment about the existence of aether, a background field. The experiment was performed in the 1880's and its conclusion was that they could see no statistical evidence for an aether. It was known but seldom discussed at that time that their experiment could not detect a gravity-centered aether such as one surrounding the Earth and other gravitational bodies.  In 1906 Einstein proposed the Theory of Special Relativity that proposed that there was no aether, that reality could be otherwise explained without it. Within about 10 years after this proposal the majority of mainstream physicists began to accept this proposal. This was the beginning of the 'woo' in the modern physics of today IMO. 

 

Max Plank had proposed that light came in discrete packages which he called Quanta. Following this Einstein also proposed that light was a particle based upon experiments showing that only discrete quantities of EM radiation could light up a cathode-ray screen. Even though there was ample evidence showing that light was a wave, some physics began to believe that light could be a particle or a wave depending on the experiment, but not both at the same time. This is also a mistaken belief IMO.

 

These were some of the foundation ideas for the formation of quantum mechanics. Another idea seldom mentioned in history is that from these foundation ideas no logical system was developed to explain what beginning quantum physicists were observing so they took the engineer's approach rather than the scientific approach to make predictions. For this  they began to rely on the very sophisticated calculations of mathematical statistics. From this they began to make predictions of their observations based upon probability; this or that will happen according to a ratio of probabilities. Although one couldn't predict what would happen in any experiment one could predict how often it would happen in a great number of exact experiments. This was the beginning of quantum mechanics and its statistical interpretations. Again there is no logic at all to this science because its basis is engineering rather than science. An engineer shows how something works rather than a scientific explanation concerning why it works that way.  Because of these beliefs and related theory QM is 'woo' science rather than a true science IMO.

 

Non-mainstream concept-only theories that propose an in-observable background field to explain the necessity of statistics in Quantum Mechanics are called local-hidden variable theory. Most theorists believe these theories can't explain all the observations of QM.

 

As to your comment: "It seems like most science people would reject any notion of retro causation or consciousness/observation collapsing the waveform, etc etc"

 

This is one of the best aspects of science IMO -- if something sounds illogical there will always be a big resistance to it. Logic is fortunately still a part of science. Retro-causation is certainly one of those crazy ideas, and consciousness/observation collapsing the waveform is another IMO. In science one should always look for logical answers rather than crazy ones. Even if a logical answer does not fit with the rest of mainstream theory does not mean a simple logical answer does not exist. In such cases I believe one should consider explanations that may be contrary to some of the assumptions of quantum mechanics that I just discussed. With the info that I provided above, if correct, the double-slit experiment and its variations can be simply understood with the application of the above differences of theory.

 

In my view, the detail of reality is even more complicated than what they presently believe, but the understanding of it and of reality in general can be understood by most anyone if properly explained. This is exactly the opposite of the beliefs of Quantum Mechanics, that the quantum world is impossible to understand. This goes back a hundred years to concept explanations in physics, called barmaid physics. There have been some funny quotes along these lines made by some of the most famous physicists.


“A scientist who can’t explain his theories to a barmaid doesn’t really understand them.”

— Ernest Rutherford (c.1915)

“A good scientific theory should be explicable to a barmaid.”

— Ernest Rutherford (c.1915)
"If you can't explain your physic's theory to a bartender than you probably don't understand it yourself"
Rutherford (1916)
"Even physicists should have beliefs. I believe I will have another drink."
— Ernest Rutherford (c.1914)
All physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them.”
Albert Einstein (c.1930)
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
— Albert Einstein (1947)
“If you can’t make a physical model of it, you don’t understand it well enough.”
James Maxwell (or William Thomson) (c.1870
“The laws of physics should be simple enough that a barmaid can grasp them.”
— Charles Wilson (c.1911)
 
https://www.eoht.info/page/Barmaid physics

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pantheory,

 

Could you please cite some references to support your claim about the zero point field?

 

Today there are many known and theorized background fields.  The most well-known of these has been observed for 70 years now and is called the Zero-point-field, which is known to consist of virtual particles and their related energy. 

 

Please note that I am not arguing the contrary, that it has not been observed for 70 years, but I'm just curious to know if you are interpreting certain experimental results to mean that the ZPF has been observed.

 

If you are, then you might be putting a different spin on something that mainstream science does not consider to be evidence for the ZPF.

 

Therefore, please justify your claim with citations from mainstream science that confirm your claim.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the historical perspective/explanation. 

 

There may be a tendency for smart people who are being paid by an institution to maintain job security by making the simple appear complicated. :)

 

"In science one should always look for logical answers rather than crazy ones." - I think people should look for answers that fit the evidence. Logic is 'adjusted' from time to time by knowledge gained. One group says it's impossible that consciousness can collapse the wave function... it does seem kinda far out and crazy ... but I'm not sure why that isn't possible... other than it is a seemingly non-physical answer. And then the other answer that the inserted test detector somehow is responsible for waveform collapse ... that's not exactly satisfying unless we know how it does that. The 2 slit object , for some reason doesnt cause wave function collapse, but a test detector does? 

 

I assume there is more research out there than just someone saying, "The detector did it..." Which is similar to "Consciousness is something the brain causes....full stop" 

 

I'm just talking from the armchair, here and dont have any education in QM. I'm not sure which way I would veer if I was an actual scientist with actual knowledge of physics. :) Towards the Copenhagen or towards a more physical explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, midniterider said:

Thanks for the historical perspective/explanation. 

 

There may be a tendency for smart people who are being paid by an institution to maintain job security by making the simple appear complicated. :)

 

"In science one should always look for logical answers rather than crazy ones." - I think people should look for answers that fit the evidence. Logic is 'adjusted' from time to time by knowledge gained. One group says it's impossible that consciousness can collapse the wave function... it does seem kinda far out and crazy ... but I'm not sure why that isn't possible... other than it is a seemingly non-physical answer. And then the other answer that the inserted test detector somehow is responsible for waveform collapse ... that's not exactly satisfying unless we know how it does that. The 2 slit object , for some reason doesn't cause wave function collapse, but a test detector does? 

 

I assume there is more research out there than just someone saying, "The detector did it..." Which is similar to "Consciousness is something the brain causes....full stop" 

 

I'm just talking from the armchair, here and don't have any education in QM. I'm not sure which way I would veer if I was an actual scientist with actual knowledge of physics. :) Towards the Copenhagen or towards a more physical explanation.

 

According to the principle of Occam's Razor the simplest explanation is the best answer all else being equal. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring it may seem" Carl Sagan.  "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." “We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt.” Richard Feynman.

 

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”― Plato.  “An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.”― James A. Michener. "Though science can cause problems, it is not by ignorance that we will solve them." — Isaac Asimov. "it is necessary to accept a considerable body of “scientific knowledge” as a given, whether ultimately true or false." "Since it is not feasible to derive everything from first principles – even there how far back do we need to go" "If you want to become a scientist, you should not simply defer to experts, you should try to figure things out for yourself, challenge what you are being taught if it doesn’t make sense, and that way, either you can learn more or contribute more to research." -- Daniel Lemire.
 
"A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one." -- Benjamin Franklin. "A learned man is an idler who kills time with study. Beware of his false knowledge: it is more dangerous than ignorance —George Bernard Shaw.
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WalterP said:

Pantheory,

 

Could you please cite some references to support your claim about the zero point field?

 

Today there are many known and theorized background fields.  The most well-known of these has been observed for 70 years now and is called the Zero-point-field, which is known to consist of virtual particles and their related energy. 

 

Please note that I am not arguing the contrary, that it has not been observed for 70 years, but I'm just curious to know if you are interpreting certain experimental results to mean that the ZPF has been observed.

 

If you are, then you might be putting a different spin on something that mainstream science does not consider to be evidence for the ZPF.

 

Therefore, please justify your claim with citations from mainstream science that confirm your claim.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Much of what I've been explaining above is alternative theory as I have stated, but the zero point field is mainstream science. As to the zero-point-field and zero-point-energy:

 

The Zero Point Field is another name for Zero Point Energy. This omnipresent background energy is known to have virtual particles within it. They are known mass particles such as electrons, positrons, etc., that pop in and out of existence. Since this field consists of both energy and particles it is often referred to as the zero point field, the omnipresent background field of the vacuum. Here are some quotes and links:

 

"The matter and force fields have zero-point energy. A related term is zero-point field (ZPF), which is the lowest energy state of a particular field. The vacuum can be viewed not as empty space, but as the combination of all zero-point fields."

 

"Everything everywhere has a zero-point energy, from particles to electromagnetic fields, and any other type of field. ... The vacuum state contains, according to quantum mechanics, fleeting electromagnetic waves and virtual particles that pop into and out of existence ...."

 

"The concept of zero-point energy was developed by Max Planck in Germany in 1911 as a corrective term added to a zero-grounded formula developed in his original quantum theory in 1900."

 

"In 1925 the existence of the ZPE was confirmed. The chemist Robert Mulliken found this proof in the spectrum of boron monoxide. As he analyzed the wavelengths of these spectral lines, he discovered a slight shift from the theoretical position that these lines would have had if the ZPE did not exist."

 

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...445....7R/abstract

https://www.mantakchia.com/zero-point-field-and-non-locality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.692.8194&rep=rep1&type=pdf

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

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Pantheory.

 

So, when you say, 'The interpretation that I adhere to involves a background field, an aether of sorts'  which background field are you referring to?

 

The ZPF?

 

A different field for which there is evidence?

 

A new field?

 

Could you help me out please?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Thank you, Pantheory.

 

So, when you say, 'The interpretation that I adhere to involves a background field, an aether of sorts'  which background field are you referring to?

 

The ZPF?

 

A different field for which there is evidence?

 

A new field?

 

Could you help me out please?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

There are only two presently accepted background fields beyond theory, the Zero point Field and the newly proposed Higgs field. There are many others such as dark matter, dark energy, quantum foam, the quantum substrate, gravitons, etc. which have been proposed. Which of these fields or another does not matter concerning my explanations involving an omni-present background field of some kind. My own preference is the zero point field which I believe has the characteristics that I refer to, but most any physical background field might fit the bill concerning my explanations of the double slit experiment above.

 

An article and book explaining the hypothesis of the zero point field as an aether similar to my own model can be seen here:

https://www.universeofparticles.com/an-aether-of-zero-point-particles/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thank Pantheory.

 

I have one other question for you, but it's technically off-topic, because its not about the double-slit experiment.

 

It's about your own personal preferences and personal interpretations of evidence.

 

So, if you don't want to entertain it here or if JoshPantera deems it off-topic, then I won't ask it.

 

Please let me know if you want me to ask it here.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One further thing, Pantheory.

 

One of your cited links crosses over from science into mysticism, spirituality and religion.

 

https://www.mantakchia.com/zero-point-field-and-non-locality

 

Quantum Sea of Light: To the quantum physicist, it is an annoyance, to be subtracted away and discounted. To the religious or the mystic, it is science proving the miracu­lous. What quantum calculations show is that we and our universe live and breathe in what amounts to a sea of motion—a quantum sea of light. What quantum physicists have found is that the energy in the Zero Point Field keeps acting on particles so that they never come to rest but always keep moving, even in conditions at a temperature of absolute zero.

 

https://www.mantakchia.com/universal-healing-tao/

 

Welcome to the home of the Universal Healing Tao, which is rooted in the ancient healing traditions of Taoism from China. The Universal Healing Tao (UHT) was created by Master Mantak Chia as a result of Master Chia’s six-plus decades of personal experience teaching tens of thousands of students from practically every country on earth. Almost 50 years, Mantak Chia has been the leader in teaching the to the Western world.

 

 

https://www.mantakchia.com/holistic-bliss/

Holistic Bliss

The Chi Factor
Creating this story and edition this month reminded me of these words from a couple of well-known scientists: “Everything is energy!” and “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration”.

A modern-day expert in all aspects of energy and harnessing it for healing is Master Mantak Chia, one of the most influential spiritual teachers of our time! Not only has he taught for 45 years and has 55 books under his belt, he is the creator of the Universal Healing Tao System, which is regularly taught around the world. This month, I was fortunate to interview him and feel his joyful, heartfelt intent.

There is something mysterious, even magical, about the ‘unseen’ life force energy, and Mantak Chia has seen first-hand what can happen when we learn how to master our own energy.

From an early age, he was interested and involved with healing in his community. “When I was a child living in the village, the elders knew of a urine healing therapy. As I was a child, they asked for my urine sample, as they believed children’s urine is the highest quality. So I gave them some and they mixed it with Chinese medicine and gave it to the sick people in the village and it healed them. After that ‘experience’, I was very interested in healing, which got me into qi gong, tai chi and yoga.”

 

 

But the title and topic of this thread concerns 'the actual science' of the Double Slit Experiment.

 

So, while the ZPF may be scientifically related to that experiment, it is not related to it in any spiritual, mystical or religious way.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WalterP said:

One further thing, Pantheory.

 

One of your cited links crosses over from science into mysticism, spirituality and religion.

 

https://www.mantakchia.com/zero-point-field-and-non-locality

 

Quantum Sea of Light: To the quantum physicist, it is an annoyance, to be subtracted away and discounted. To the religious or the mystic, it is science proving the miracu­lous. What quantum calculations show is that we and our universe live and breathe in what amounts to a sea of motion—a quantum sea of light. What quantum physicists have found is that the energy in the Zero Point Field keeps acting on particles so that they never come to rest but always keep moving, even in conditions at a temperature of absolute zero.

 

https://www.mantakchia.com/universal-healing-tao/

 

Welcome to the home of the Universal Healing Tao, which is rooted in the ancient healing traditions of Taoism from China. The Universal Healing Tao (UHT) was created by Master Mantak Chia as a result of Master Chia’s six-plus decades of personal experience teaching tens of thousands of students from practically every country on earth. Almost 50 years, Mantak Chia has been the leader in teaching the to the Western world.

 

 

https://www.mantakchia.com/holistic-bliss/

Holistic Bliss

The Chi Factor
Creating this story and edition this month reminded me of these words from a couple of well-known scientists: “Everything is energy!” and “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration”.

A modern-day expert in all aspects of energy and harnessing it for healing is Master Mantak Chia, one of the most influential spiritual teachers of our time! Not only has he taught for 45 years and has 55 books under his belt, he is the creator of the Universal Healing Tao System, which is regularly taught around the world. This month, I was fortunate to interview him and feel his joyful, heartfelt intent.

There is something mysterious, even magical, about the ‘unseen’ life force energy, and Mantak Chia has seen first-hand what can happen when we learn how to master our own energy.

From an early age, he was interested and involved with healing in his community. “When I was a child living in the village, the elders knew of a urine healing therapy. As I was a child, they asked for my urine sample, as they believed children’s urine is the highest quality. So I gave them some and they mixed it with Chinese medicine and gave it to the sick people in the village and it healed them. After that ‘experience’, I was very interested in healing, which got me into qi gong, tai chi and yoga.”

 

 

But the title and topic of this thread concerns 'the actual science' of the Double Slit Experiment.

 

So, while the ZPF may be scientifically related to that experiment, it is not related to it in any spiritual, mystical or religious way.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Forget that link. Anything related to mysticism, spiritualism, or woo science like most quantum theory, is all pure BS IMO, I remember reading some of that links contents but did not intend to post it. There have been a number of BS books concerning the Tao and Chi of physics written by quantum physicists that I have read and laughed at. How can some PhD quantum physicists be so mislead. I blame their woo thinking on mainstream quantum physics interpretations like those suggested concerning the double slit experiment above. It's mixing science with philosophy or religion. It might make sense to those who believe such things but it certainly should not be considered science.

 

As to the unrelated question you said you wished to ask, "It's about your own personal preferences and personal interpretations of evidence."

 

If the question is about my personal preferences then we are talking philosophy, and such a question does not belong in this sub-forum unless question and answer can be brief. If it's about my scientific interpretations then the answers relate to my own science theories which have been published and discussed here before with related links. If you want to ask an off-topic science question here I can certainly give you a brief answer, but if you would wish to continue an off-topic discussion, we could start another thread for it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

 

 

As to the unrelated question you said you wished to ask, "It's about your own personal preferences and personal interpretations of evidence."

 

If the question is about my personal preferences then we are talking philosophy, and such a question does not belong in this sub-forum unless question and answer can be brief. If it's about my scientific interpretations then the answers relate to my own science theories which have been published and discussed here before with related links. If you want to ask an off-topic science question here I can certainly give you a brief answer, but if you would wish to continue an off-topic discussion, we could start another thread for it.

 

 

 

Hello Pantheory.

 

My question relates to how scientific theories can be falsified.  

 

As you know, some theories about causally separate universes have no hope of ever being falsified by any new evidence or data.  This is a powerful criticism of them and one that I entirely agree with.  These 'theories' have ceased to be physics and are more akin to metaphysics.  By and large I dismiss them and I would imagine you do too.

 

But I think I can see another way that theories can be moved beyond the possibility of falsification and this is what I'd like to discuss with you.

 

So, given that our discussion wouldn't be about the double-slit experiment, but would be about falsification in science, do you think a new thread in this section (Science vs Religion) would be appropriate?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Hello Pantheory.

 

My question relates to how scientific theories can be falsified.  

 

As you know, some theories about causally separate universes have no hope of ever being falsified by any new evidence or data.  This is a powerful criticism of them and one that I entirely agree with.  These 'theories' have ceased to be physics and are more akin to metaphysics.  By and large I dismiss them and I would imagine you do too.

 

But I think I can see another way that theories can be moved beyond the possibility of falsification and this is what I'd like to discuss with you.

 

So, given that our discussion wouldn't be about the double-slit experiment, but would be about falsification in science, do you think a new thread in this section (Science vs Religion) would be appropriate?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

How can scientific theories be falsified?

 

I think this question is a very good one which can somewhat relate to the double-slit experiment and Quantum Theory. Of course my answers relate to perspectives concerning the definition of scientific theory, and there are a number of them.

 

The definition that might be most accepted today concerning scientific theory is this one: "A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation"

 

More rigid definitions of scientific theory have additional requirements such as one that can make verifiable predictions, be testable, verifiable, and falsifiable.  Experiments and observations in general may not necessarily meet the criteria of testability since they can be improperly designed or misinterpreted.

 

1) If a theory doesn't make testable predictions it's not a scientific theory. It's not an hypothesis either because it doesn't meet the definition of either. It's simply a proposal or speculation which can be the beginning of the scientific method if someday it could be testable.

 

2) Scientific theories are both testable and make falsifiable predictions.They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive, aiming for predictive and explanatory power.

 

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

 

So the answer to your question is simply what definition of "scientific theory" do you prefer, since there is no consensus definition.  If one's preferred definition requires a scientific theory to be testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and make verifiable predictions, then those science "proposals" that do not meet one or more of these criteria can be considered axioms, hypothesis, proposals, or speculation, but not theory.

 

If instead your definitions is: "A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation," then the theory is not falsifiable since any of the proposals to support the theory can be changed over time if they are proven wrong. Theories based upon this definition, would be much more difficult to replace when they are wrong.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again Pantheory and thank you for your helpful input.

 

Since you've elected to explore the question in this thread, I'll respond to you here, rather than create a new thread for that purpose.

 

Your cited definition is a good one.  "A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation"  I agree with it.  But what's troubling me is the possibility that a theory can become unfalsifiable because the scientist formulating it cannot agree terms of interpretation with other scientists.

 

I'll try and explain.   Let's say that Prof X formulates theory Y and insists that only his interpretation of the above definition is valid, rejecting all others.  This creates the situation where there is no common ground between Prof X and any other scientist.  So, even if the rest of the scientific community consider theory Y to be falsified by experiments and observations,  Prof X will not accept that it has been.  By making himself the sole arbiter of what constitutes 'a proper interpretation' of experimental results and observations, the good professor has , to all intents and purposes, made his theory unfalsifiable. 

 

Before I go any further Pantheory, please trust me and accept that what I am writing here is not a personal attack upon you or your theories. 

 

Let me explain further.  Recently PittsburghJoe showed up and I began to see an interesting pattern in his response to our requests for evidence to back up his claims.  At every turn he rejected all attempts to get him to conform to any commonly accepted standard of scientific rigor.  He was just the same when it came to religious matters and even though he called himself a Christian he rejected every attempt to get him to conform to any commonly accepted Biblical standard or definition. 

 

He was the sole arbiter of what he considered to be right and he was his own authority on anything and everything.  This lack of common ground between him and everyone else meant that, even though we pointed out his mistakes and inconsistencies, he could never accept them.  We caught him out in matters of science and matters of religion, but he was having none of it.  He is the ultimate maverick, sharing no common ground with anyone else.  This meant that his claims were effectively unfalsifiable.

 

So, what has this to do with unfalsifiable theories?

 

This is where I must put my cards on the table and declare that I'm worried about you and for you, Pantheory.   

 

If my understanding of your position is correct (and please forgive me if it isn't) you reject almost everything in modern, 20th and 21st century physics.  You believe that for over a century scientists the world over have misinterpreted the meaning and import of almost every experiment and observation made in physics.  If this is so, then it seems to me that, apart from Classical physics, there is next to no common ground between you and the scientific community.

 

This lack of common ground suggests to me that my hypothetical situation involving Prof X and his Y theory could be very similar to the actual position you occupy vis-à-vis the mainstream scientific community.  Upon examining your theories they might consider them falsified by this experiment or that observation.  But, because you and they cannot agree on how to interpret these experiments and observations, you would consider your theories to still be viable and valid.

 

It may even be that, because you and other scientists can't agree on anything much, that you may have made your theories effectively unfalsifiable.  Putting it another way, if the only conditions under which they could be falsified are those decided by you, then you may have become the sole arbiter of how and when your own theory can be falsified.

 

I hope that you can see the danger inherent in this scenario, Pantheory.  Occupying such a position might result in a loss of professional objectivity.  Please believe me when I say that I am not accusing you of anything.  I just happen to have seen what I think is a pattern and I'm writing to you about this in good faith and in genuine concern for you.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.