Jump to content

Double Slit Experiment: the actual science.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • 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

30 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Just scrolling casually through this thread makes my head hurt.

 

The many BS theories of today and their related explanations is what should make your head hurt :) That everything in reality can be simply explained, as this thread asserts, should relieve your headache, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
On 2/12/2021 at 7:52 PM, pantheory said:

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.

 

One of the questions that comes from the particle - wave duality is wave's existing within the context of what medium? 

 

On 2/12/2021 at 8:49 PM, pantheory said:

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.

 

So there's a variety of ideas to answer the question of what the wave medium could be. Is that what you mean by background field? You are referring to the wave medium in which photon or particle waves can exist within in order to reveal the interference wave pattern? 

 

One of the alternative explanations comes from Geoff Haselhurst. He suggests that space has the properties of a continuous wave medium, necessarily infinite and eternal. And that spherical standing wave centers form in the wave medium of space itself. Giving a particle appearance: https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm

 

 

We simply needed to describe reality from the most simple foundation of the one thing, Space, that all matter exists in (look around you now and think about this - we all experience existing in space).
This leads to only one solution, a Wave Structure of Matter in Space from which we then deduce the fundamentals of physics, philosophy and metaphysics to show that it is correct (and scientific / testable, not just our opinion).

The Wave Structure of Matter in SpaceFig. 1: There is no particle-wave duality of matter, just a spherical standing wave structure of matter where the wave center creates the 'particle' effect, and the spherical in and out waves provide continual two way communication with all other matter in the universe.

We only see the high wave amplitude wave-center and have been deluded into thinking matter was made of tiny little 'particles'. A very naive conception in hindsight - and quantum physics was telling us all along that waves were central to light and matter interactions!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

The above is interesting for several reasons. If particles are just waves, never really have been point particles, and no such duality exists in reality, then anyone who latches on to the mystery of the particle - wave duality as the basis of their, let's say, theology or anything else, would then fail at the foundation. 

 

Let's say that some christian apologist came along and decided to claim that the particle - wave duality proves that god exists, but as it turns out there really isn't any duality involved and it was just misunderstood and primitive science, the whole god theory is immediately toast by default.

 

Just thought I'd toss that possibility into the mix. It's extremely unwise for christian apologist's to try and jump on science mysteries, prematurely, and start trying to use them to make a case for the existence of god. Or to claim are encoded into Genesis or any other such demonstrable nonsense. 

 

Yes, these topics can cause a brain freeze at times. 

 

But the simple point is just that christians are very wrong to try and use science to telescope backwards to the bronze age written bible. Science is always changing. Learning is a work in progress. And it's idiotic at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst, for christians to try and build up grand apologetic's from such sandy foundations in premature understanding and far from well understood scientific issues. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

One of the questions that comes from the particle - wave duality is wave's existing within the context of what medium? 

 

So there's a variety of ideas to answer the question of what the wave medium could be. Is that what you mean by background field? You are referring to the wave medium in which photon or particle waves can exist within in order to reveal the interference wave pattern? 

 

One of the alternative explanations comes from Geoff Haselhurst. He suggests that space has the properties of a continuous wave medium, necessarily infinite and eternal. And that spherical standing wave centers form in the wave medium of space itself. Giving a particle appearance: https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm

 

We simply needed to describe reality from the most simple foundation of the one thing, Space, that all matter exists in (look around you now and think about this - we all experience existing in space).
This leads to only one solution, a Wave Structure of Matter in Space from which we then deduce the fundamentals of physics, philosophy and metaphysics to show that it is correct (and scientific / testable, not just our opinion).

The Wave Structure of Matter in SpaceFig. 1: There is no particle-wave duality of matter, just a spherical standing wave structure of matter where the wave center creates the 'particle' effect, and the spherical in and out waves provide continual two way communication with all other matter in the universe.

We only see the high wave amplitude wave-center and have been deluded into thinking matter was made of tiny little 'particles'. A very naive conception in hindsight - and quantum physics was telling us all along that waves were central to light and matter interactions!

"So there's a variety of ideas to answer the question of what the wave medium could be. Is that what you mean by background field? You are referring to the wave medium in which photon or particle waves can exist within in order to reveal the interference wave pattern?"

 

In Quantum theory the wave function is a mathematical probability wave, however ridiculous that may seem. Now I think it's the zero point field, but a hundred years ago it was called aether. It is a physical background field of non-matter particulates. It is like a very fine atmosphere. Other proposed fields are dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs field, quantum foam, the quantum substrate etc. The particulates within it accordingly has local hidden variable that interact with quantum particles but cannot be predicted other than the  probability they will interact.

 

The interference pattern in the simple double slit is very easy to understand when one realizes that light is a wave. Here is the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_interference_experiment

 

More complicated versions easily show that light is both a particle and a wave at exactly the same time IMO. Accordingly as a photon would go through a single slit the wave of the light would go through both slits. Both waves accordingly interfere with each other and with the photon. Again the screen pattern observed can be seen on the above link. This simple explanation only can exist if light is a wave with particles within it.

 

The wave nature of matter was discovered by Luis De Broglie. Although atomic particles are physical like protons and electrons. both of these particles have particle spin to them. As they spin in the background field they produce waves. These waves are what we observe as particle waves, in my own theory. Standing wave theory were also proposed by De Broglie.

 

Space is the distance between matter, nothing more. Time is an interval of change. An instant of time within the interval is an instant you read on a clock, nothing more, both according to my own model.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The above is interesting for several reasons. If particles are just waves, never really have been point particles, and no such duality exists in reality, then anyone who latches on to the mystery of the particle - wave duality as the basis of their, let's say, theology or anything else, would then fail at the foundation. 

 

Let's say that some christian apologist came along and decided to claim that the particle - wave duality proves that god exists, but as it turns out there really isn't any duality involved and it was just misunderstood and primitive science, the whole god theory is immediately toast by default.

 

Just thought I'd toss that possibility into the mix. It's extremely unwise for christian apologist's to try and jump on science mysteries, prematurely, and start trying to use them to make a case for the existence of god. Or to claim are encoded into Genesis or any other such demonstrable nonsense. 

 

Yes, these topics can cause a brain freeze at times. 

 

But the simple point is just that christians are very wrong to try and use science to telescope backwards to the bronze age written bible. Science is always changing. Learning is a work in progress. And it's idiotic at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst, for christians to try and build up grand apologetic's from such sandy foundations in premature understanding and far from well understood scientific issues. 

 

Again in my own model particles produce waves by their spin. These particles that spin are called fermions. Particles that don't spin do not produce waves. In mainstream physics electrons are called point particles since they have no visible, discernible radius or form. But none would probably be surprised if someday such a small radial size of electrons were discovered. 

 

I don't blame Christians for thinking that science could help them prove their beliefs since they honestly believe. But almost always they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to science.  But there will always be a few intellectually dishonest people also, religion or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pantheory,

 

You seem to expect that quantum scale phenomenon should obey the same logic governing macroscopic phenomenon. 

 

As I understand it, you've used Occam's Razor to arrive at this expectation.

 

The simplest explanation being that the quantum world operates in the same way as our macroscopic world.

 

Which would mean that scientists are wrong to believe that quantum scale phenomenon operate according to their own, different logic.

 

But can the Razor sometimes lead us astray?

 

 

There is a good reason for my asking this question.

 

The recent discovery of the gas phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus was totally unexpected.

 

If the Razor had been used by the scientists studying Venus before the discovery, they would have chosen the simplest chemical model, excluding phosphine.

 

According to our current understanding of chemical reactions, there is no possible way for phosphine to be present in Venus' atmosphere.

 

According to Occam's Razor phosphine shouldn't exist on Venus.

 

Yet, there it is.  

 

Phosphine in Venus's upper atmosphere, independently confirmed by two different science teams.

 

This is clearly a case where the evidence trumps the usage of the Razor, demonstrating that sometimes it can lead us astray.

 

 

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this, Pantheory.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

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

 

Pantheory,

 

You seem to expect that quantum scale phenomenon should obey the same logic governing macroscopic phenomenon. 

 

As I understand it, you've used Occam's Razor to arrive at this expectation.

 

The simplest explanation being that the quantum world operates in the same way as our macroscopic world.

 

Which would mean that scientists are wrong to believe that quantum scale phenomenon operate according to their own, different logic.

 

But can the Razor sometimes lead us astray?

 

 

There is a good reason for my asking this question.

 

The recent discovery of the gas phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus was totally unexpected.

 

If the Razor had been used by the scientists studying Venus before the discovery, they would have chosen the simplest chemical model, excluding phosphine.

 

According to our current understanding of chemical reactions, there is no possible way for phosphine to be present in Venus' atmosphere.

 

According to Occam's Razor phosphine shouldn't exist on Venus.

 

Yet, there it is.  

 

Phosphine in Venus's upper atmosphere, independently confirmed by two different science teams.

 

This is clearly a case where the evidence trumps the usage of the Razor, demonstrating that sometimes it can lead us astray.

 

 

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this, Pantheory.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

"You seem to expect that quantum scale phenomenon should obey the same logic governing macroscopic phenomenon."

 

yes, you are correct. I propose that everything in reality is very simple and can be explained to and understood by a barmaid.

 

"But can the Razor sometimes lead us astray?"

 

Yes it can lead us astray. The razor says that the simplest answer is the best answer all else being equal. If a more complicated explanation can ultimately make better predictions then all else would not be equal. But the theory I propose has no math to it so the predictions that I would make would most often be the same as QM, just the explanations concerning why it works that way would be totally different. I expect there would be fewer surprises concerning predictions using my proposed model, and hopefully none.

 

"The recent discovery of the gas phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus was totally unexpected."

 

"If the Razor had been used by the scientists studying Venus before the discovery, they would have chosen the simplest chemical model, excluding phosphine.According to our current understanding of chemical reactions, there is no possible way for phosphine to be present in Venus' atmosphere. According to Occam's Razor phosphine shouldn't exist on Venus. According to our current understanding of chemical reactions, there is no possible way for phosphine to be present in Venus' atmosphere. According to Occam's Razor phosphine shouldn't exist on Venus. Yet, there it is.  Phosphine in Venus's upper atmosphere, independently confirmed by two different science teams."

 

The Razor is primarily used for science hypothesis relating to theory, not applied science. Of course the simplest answers for any quandary should logically always be considered first before other possibilities.

 

Studies by many more groups will be required to confirm Phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus. The reason for the required certainty of confirmation is that we will send a probe(s) to Venus to check out the existence of phosphine and the possibility of life there. Although such a mission will likely be easier than our complicated Mars' missions, such a mission will likely require a fly-back to Earth, but regardless of how it is done it will cost hundreds of millions, if not more than a billion dollars US.  In the final analysis I would bet that phosphine does not exist in the Venusian atmosphere, but in the final analysis if we believe that it does, we will send a mission there, and I and the world will be very excited to see the results concerning possible life.

 

best regards, Forrest

 

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

 

"You seem to expect that quantum scale phenomenon should obey the same logic governing macroscopic phenomenon."

 

yes, you are correct. I propose that everything in reality is very simple and can be explained to and understood by a barmaid.

 

 

But how can that be, Pantheory?

 

At our macroscopic level no physical influence can travel faster than the speed of light between two separate locations.

 

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

 

In the June 16, 2017, issue of Science, Yin et al. report setting a new quantum entanglement distance record of 1,203 km, demonstrating the survival of a two-photon pair and a violation of a Bell inequality, reaching a CHSH valuation of 2.37 ± 0.09, under strict Einstein locality conditions, from the Micius satellite to bases in Lijian, Yunnan and Delingha, Quinhai, increasing the efficiency of transmission over prior fiber optic experiments by an order of magnitude.

 

A change in one photon cause an instantaneous change in another one, over a thousand kilometres away.

 

Which violates our macroscopic understanding of cause-and-effect.

 

So, perhaps you could explain how this happens, treating me as a simple-minded barmaid?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@WalterP,

 

I don't understand this thread enough to understand it, but I remember when that study came out I called my cousin who at the time was a professor of astrophysics for graduate level work in the Northeast.  I was excited that information could be instantaneously transmitted - imagine what this could do for space travel.  She laughed for a minute then gently explained I was misunderstanding what actually occurs in quantum entanglement.  There is no change in the particle.  If particle A reads as 1, then particle B reads as 1, but if you force particle A to read as 0, then you break the entanglement.  This is the beginning and end of my knowledge of this field.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Krowb said:

@WalterP,

 

I don't understand this thread enough to understand it, but I remember when that study came out I called my cousin who at the time was a professor of astrophysics for graduate level work in the Northeast.  I was excited that information could be instantaneously transmitted - imagine what this could do for space travel.  She laughed for a minute then gently explained I was misunderstanding what actually occurs in quantum entanglement.  There is no change in the particle.  If particle A reads as 1, then particle B reads as 1, but if you force particle A to read as 0, then you break the entanglement.  This is the beginning and end of my knowledge of this field.

 

My bad, Krowb.

 

I'm better at cosmology than quantum mechanics.

 

However, even if I got the bit about the entanglement of a pair of photons wrong, there's still the violation of Bell inequality to be taken into account.

 

Bell's theorem uses probabilities averaged over many pairs of entangled photons, rather than just one pair.

 

If entanglement were not possible over macroscopic distances, then the probabilities should average out to a certain value.

 

But repeated experiments, independently performed by many science teams over the years have consistently found that they do not have this value.

 

Which means that photons do remain entangled over macroscopic distances, even if no meaningful information can be transmitted by them.

 

Pantheory seems to think that he can explain this to me simply, with me taking on the role of a barmaid.

 

I look forward to this.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

But how can that be, Pantheory?

 

At our macroscopic level no physical influence can travel faster than the speed of light between two separate locations.

 

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

 

In the June 16, 2017, issue of Science, Yin et al. report setting a new quantum entanglement distance record of 1,203 km, demonstrating the survival of a two-photon pair and a violation of a Bell inequality, reaching a CHSH valuation of 2.37 ± 0.09, under strict Einstein locality conditions, from the Micius satellite to bases in Lijian, Yunnan and Delingha, Quinhai, increasing the efficiency of transmission over prior fiber optic experiments by an order of magnitude.

 

A change in one photon cause an instantaneous change in another one, over a thousand kilometres away.

 

Which violates our macroscopic understanding of cause-and-effect.

 

So, perhaps you could explain how this happens, treating me as a simple-minded barmaid?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

It's extremely simple. Based upon the wave character of light when you send off light in opposite directions you are sending off exactly the same light wave. As you know light waves are spherical from a central light source. As the exact waves go off in different directions their predictions are nothing but simple. You get exactly the same indication from both measurements since you are measuring exactly the same light wave in both locations. If the measuring device is in the opposite direction, 180 degrees apart,  the photon will pass though a detector the opposite of the other detector. Again very simple stuff that anybody can understand. It's when you consider light as a particle that the woo of quantum physics befuddles experimental understandings.

 

Using electrons, there is a little difference. This is seen within atoms. When two electrons are in the same electron shell each will have the opposite spin of the other. They are called entangled. When you put free electrons very close to each other for a few seconds they are said to be entangled. Entanglement means that one has the opposite spin as the other by this process. Now send off in opposite directions then one will always have the opposite spin as the other. The mystery of it in mainstream physics is how they become entangled by putting them close together when they never touch. The simple answer is that there is a background field. This is what quantum physics cannot understand.  As one electron spins it creates a vortex in the field that influences the spin of the other. Like in the shell of an atom, to be that close their spins must turn the opposite of the other so their vortexes don't interfere with each other. So send them off in opposite directions and what do you get when you measure their spins, one will have the opposite spin as the other--so obvious. Consider the results nothing but barmaid physics. Again all of quantum interactions are easily understood without any woo physics as long as you choose the correct perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, midniterider said:

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

 

Me too but make it a 12 pack of Coors Light, and the only wings I will need is the plane trip over to your place.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

It's extremely simple. Based upon the wave character of light when you send off light in opposite directions you are sending off exactly the same light wave. As you know light waves are spherical from a central light source. As the exact waves go off in different directions their predictions are nothing but simple. You get exactly the same indication from both measurements since you are measuring exactly the same light wave in both locations. If the measuring device is in the opposite direction, 180 degrees apart,  the photon will pass though a detector the opposite of the other detector. Again very simple stuff that anybody can understand. It's when you consider light as a particle that the woo of quantum physics befuddles experimental understandings.

 

Using electrons, there is a little difference. This is seen within atoms. When two electrons are in the same electron shell each will have the opposite spin of the other. They are called entangled. When you put free electrons very close to each other for a few seconds they are said to be entangled. Entanglement means that one has the opposite spin as the other by this process. Now send off in opposite directions then one will always have the opposite spin as the other. The mystery of it in mainstream physics is how they become entangled by putting them close together when they never touch. The simple answer is that there is a background field. This is what quantum physics cannot understand.  As one electron spins it creates a vortex in the field that influences the spin of the other. Like in the shell of an atom, to be that close their spins must turn the opposite of the other so their vortexes don't interfere with each other. So send them off in opposite directions and what do you get when you measure their spins, one will have the opposite spin as the other--so obvious. Consider the results nothing but barmaid physics. Again all of quantum interactions are easily understood without any woo physics as long as you choose the correct perspective.

 

Pantheory,

 

None of what you've written here is extremely simple from the p.o.v. of a barmaid.

 

Barmaids know nothing about vortices in background fields, nothing about atomic shells and nothing about the spin of particles like electrons.

 

So, your claim that you can explain your theory to a barmaid hasn't held water.

 

Or beer.

 

Would you like to try again at a level that is realistic for a barmaid?

 

Or perhaps retract your claim?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, have you applied Occam's Razor to the situation between you and mainstream science?

 

All things being equal, all humans are fallible.

 

But when humans rigorously test and check each others work, errors not seen by an individual are often discovered by others.

 

Therefore, since mainstream science rigorously checks and tests itself collectively, the Razor suggests that you (the individual) are more likely to be in error.

 

In the same way, since mainstream science has performed the actual experiments and you have not, the Razor once again says that you are more likely to be in error.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pantheory,

 

Going back to Bell's Theorem, what about my contention that violations of Bell Inequality indicate that phenomenon at the quantum scale do not exhibit the same behaviour as those found at our macroscopic scale?

 

Bells Theorem satisfies all the conditions you set down.   "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"

 

It makes testable predictions, it is falsifiable and it has been repeatedly confirmed by experimentation and observation.

 

Furthermore, it follows Occam's Razor nicely, being no more complex than the sum of the elements you've described from your theory.

 

As far as the point I am making, there's no need to invoke what you call 'woo' to see the result of violations of Bell's Theorem.

 

My point being that these violations indicate that the quantum realm does not obey the same rules as our macroscopic realm.

 

No 'woo' involved in drawing that conclusion.

 

I'm not seeking to explain how or why anything happens in these experiments.

 

All I'm doing is pointing out that these violations are not what you would expect to see if the quantum realm behaved in the same way as our macroscopic realm does.

 

So, do you accept the results showing violations of Bell's Theorem, Pantheory?

 

And, more importantly, on the basis of these violations, do you accept that the quantum realm behaves differently from our macroscopic realm?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

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

 

Pantheory,

 

None of what you've written here is extremely simple from the p.o.v. of a barmaid.

 

Barmaids know nothing about vortices in background fields, nothing about atomic shells and nothing about the spin of particles like electrons.

 

So, your claim that you can explain your theory to a barmaid hasn't held water.

 

Or beer.

 

Would you like to try again at a level that is realistic for a barmaid?

 

Or perhaps retract your claim?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

You don't have to know anything about vortices, you just have to know the meaning of the word. A tornado is the best worldly example of a vortex. Since I explained a background field is like an atmosphere, when a particle spins it creates a vortex  within the field. When two tornadoes are close to each other they will repel each other, with a few exceptions. Near the equator, two tornadoes can form where each will have the opposite spin of the other. When they come close to each other they will merge.

 

The advantage a barmaid has over our conversations is that she can continuously ask questions so the explanations will not proceed without her understanding of the underlying principles. For this, I would also continuously ask her questions about what I had just explained before I would progress further in my explanation. Explanations and their understandings can only proceed for those who are interested in them, like any explanations about anything. I would also explain that the explanations that I am giving contain aspects of them that are not mainstream physics such as vortices created in the background field as particles spin. So for electron vortices, they will repel each other when they come close to each other, called the same magnetic charge. But when very close, one of the electrons will flip its orientation relative to the other as they get even closer to each other so they can coexist near each other. But they still cannot touch unless forced since their spins prevent it. When this happens they are said to be entangled.

 

Electron spin (also proton spin) is like a gyroscope. Its spin normally resists its axis of rotation from changing. So if you send these electrons off in different directions their spin orientation relative to each other will not change. When you check the spin of one maybe a hundred kilometers away from the other, they will still have opposite spins. In QM this is thought to be unbelievable and amazing. 

 

Concerning atoms. All atoms have shells of electrons surrounding them. For hydrogen and helium there is just one shell since atomic hydrogen has but one electron and helium has two. Two electrons can coexist in the same first shell. In the outer shells which have even numbers the orientations of electrons will not change if the amount of electrons is an even number. The outer shell could have an odd number of electrons so in this shell one or more of the electrons will keep changing orientation (spin up or down) relative to the other.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=electrons+shells+definition&sxsrf=ALeKk03jLmGW0YPvGZV3sBKoK7ieGe1aHA:1613494591118&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC9Mzf7-7uAhXTGDQIHbx2CNAQ_AUoAXoECCQQAw&biw=1172&bih=562

 

The purpose of this explanation is to show how electrons become what they call entangled so that when they go off in different directions they will always have the opposite spin unless one is interfered with be another particle on its trip. This simplicity of particle entanglement is one of the biggest amazements in quantum physics, where in reality it can be understood by most anyone when they understand the foundation principles of this alternative explanation.

 

Don't get beer into the picture since some may get spilled :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

136049238_10225277545623924_8329684997766941339_n.jpg

 

Box jiggles....and a loud yowl issues from it...

 

Schrodinger: The cat could be both alive and dead at the same time....

 

Yeah, right.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

136049238_10225277545623924_8329684997766941339_n.jpg

 

Yes, the cat is not alive and dead at the same time, it is simply alive. Amaizing! We can't believe it. This entirely contradicts QM. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pantheory,

 

You claim that electrons will always have the opposite spin, even if they are separated by hundreds of kilometres.

 

I'm sorry, but that is not the result that has been consistently found by different science teams since the 1970's, when they performed experiments to check this.  

 

These are the violations of Bell's Theorem that I've mentioned in this thread.

 

If the quantum realm behaves in the same way that our macroscopic realm does then the spin of widely-separated particles should always be opposite to each other.

 

But these violations show that these particles don't do that.

 

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

 

'To date, all Bell tests have supported the theory of quantum physics, and not the hypothesis of local hidden variables.'

 

 

Please note that I am offering no explanations for why this result is this way it is.

 

Consequently there is no 'woo' to be found in my statements.

 

All I have been doing so far is to point out that the expectation that the quantum realm should behave like our macroscopic realm has not been verified by experiment.

 

Now, in the light of your latest post, I am pointing out one other thing.

 

You are wrong in claiming that widely-separated particles should always spin in opposite ways to each other.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

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

Pantheory,

 

You claim that electrons will always have the opposite spin, even if they are separated by hundreds of kilometres.

 

I'm sorry, but that is not the result that has been consistently found by different science teams since the 1970's, when they performed experiments to check this.  

 

These are the violations of Bell's Theorem that I've mentioned in this thread.

 

If the quantum realm behaves in the same way that our macroscopic realm does then the spin of widely-separated particles should always be opposite to each other.

 

But these violations show that these particles don't do that.

 

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

 

'To date, all Bell tests have supported the theory of quantum physics, and not the hypothesis of local hidden variables.'

 

 

Please note that I am offering no explanations for why this result is this way it is.

 

Consequently there is no 'woo' to be found in my statements.

 

All I have been doing so far is to point out that the expectation that the quantum realm should behave like our macroscopic realm has not been verified by experiment.

 

Now, in the light of your latest post, I am pointing out one other thing.

 

You are wrong in claiming that widely-separated particles should always spin in opposite ways to each other.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

"You claim that electrons will always have the opposite spin, even if they are separated by hundreds of kilometres."

 

Yes they will if first they are entangled before their trip, and if neither is interfered with in that trip.

 

https://erc.europa.eu/projects-figures/stories/how-entangle-two-electrons-–-and-do-it-again-and-again

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

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/

 

"These are the violations of Bell's Theorem that I've mentioned in this thread."

 

Bell's theorem is called Bell's inequalities and Bell's Assumptions.The mainstream interpretation of Bell's theorem is wrong. Although Bell stated via his maths that quantum entanglement could not be explained by local hidden variables theory as it could other QM predictions, he obviously did not discuss possibilities of alternative physics hidden-variable theory. Bell was a genius so he presented this fact is his disclaimers.

 

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-quest-to-test-quantum-entanglement

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

 

As some may be able to tell, I've given barmaid explanations many times in real world circumstances :) I even married one of the barmaids when she became a bartender -- of course it wasn't my only marriage -- and ??

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Box jiggles....and a loud yowl issues from it...

 

Schrodinger: The cat could be both alive and dead at the same time....

 

Yeah, right.

 

Schrodinger was also a genius and proposed Shrodinger's Cat as a thought experiment. He did this to show what he thought to be the ridiculous interpretations of quantum mechanics. Although QM adopted his famous wave equations continuously used in QM today, he thought the theory and interpretations they had developed were worse than ridiculous.  Concerning Quantum Mechanics he said:

 

“I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.”
Erwin Schrödinger
 
He was fluent in both German and English. He also was very good with the ladies :) He definitely was not a nerd. He had many other famous quotes. Here are a few of them:
 
“The task is ... not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.”
Erwin Schrodinger
 
“Like so many works that have had a great impact on human thinking, it makes points that, once they are grasped, have a ring of almost self-evident truth; yet they are still blindly ignored by a disconcertingly large proportion of people who should know better.”
Erwin Schrödinger
 
“By the way, I never realized that to be non-believing, to be an atheist, was a thing to be proud of. It went without saying as it were.
Erwin Schrödingerq
 
“If a man never contradicts himself, the reason must be that he virtually never says anything at all.”
Erwin Schrödinger
 
“If we were bees, ants, or Lacedaemonian| warriors, to whom personal fear does not exist and cowardice is the most shameful thing in the world, warring would go on forever. But luckily we are only men — and cowards.”
Erwin Schrodinger
 

“Science cannot tell us a word about why music delights us, or why and how an old song can move us to tears.”
Erwin Schrödinger

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

"You claim that electrons will always have the opposite spin, even if they are separated by hundreds of kilometres."

 

Yes they will if first they are entangled before their trip, and if neither is interfered with in that trip.

 

https://erc.europa.eu/projects-figures/stories/how-entangle-two-electrons-–-and-do-it-again-and-again

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

 

"These are the violations of Bell's Theorem that I've mentioned in this thread."

 

The mainstream interpretation of Bell's theorem is wrong. Although Bell stated via his maths that quantum entanglement could not be explained by local hidden variables theory as it could other QM predictions, he obviously did not consider or discuss possibilities of alternative physics hidden-variable theory. Bell was a genius so he presented this fact is his disclaimers.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

 

As some may be able to tell, I've done barmaid explanations many times in real world circumstances :) I even married one of the barmaids when she became a bartender -- of course it wasn't my only marriage -- and ??

 

 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

At no time in this thread have I said anything about mainstream interpretations of Bell's theorem.  

 

The point I am making and which you haven't addressed is this one.

 

If your alternative physics hidden-variable theory were true, then the spin of widely-separated particles would remain in opposition to one another.

 

But no Bell test ever performed has ever found this.  

 

The data taken over decades of testing indicates that all local hidden-variable theories are wrong.

 

As such, you need not repeat yourself any further by alluding to faulty interpretations of any kind.

 

Where you need to apply yourself is to find a flaw or fault with the Bell test itself or with the data taken during these tests.

 

Can you do that without falling back on the device of faulty interpretation?

 

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.