Double Slit Experiment: the actual science.

[WalterP]

Pantheory,

 

Please refer back to what I wrote 23 hours ago...

 

 If a theory is only falsifiable on terms chosen by the theory's originator and that person reserves the right to interpret all data, evidence, models, hypotheses, etc.  in their own way, then we have a closed circle.  Their theory can only be falsified on their terms.

 

...and 13 hours ago...

 

You reject modern physics and have your own, alternative physics.  Which means that there's no overlap between you and mainstream science. Just like these two circles.  So, you will only accept falsification of your theories within your own terms.  

 

...and what Josh wrote yesterday...

 

And @pantheory if you have theories that are not falsifiable, it seems fair enough to just admit that the theory therefore exist outside of the scope of bona fide science as Walter put it. 

 

My interest was and is in YOUR theories, not the double-slit experiment.

 

Josh was interested in YOUR theories, not the double-slit experiment.

 

You responded to Josh about YOUR theories, writing this.

 

If a theory is not falsifiable, it's not a theory at all.  At best it's speculation. Every theory of mine is falsifiable, but many mainstream theories are not falsifiable.

 

But, to date, you have not explained to Josh (or me) HOW your theories can be falsified.

 

So, please make good on your claim that your theories are falsifiable, by explaining how they can be falsified.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

Pantheory,

 

Please refer back to what I wrote 23 hours ago...

 

 If a theory is only falsifiable on terms chosen by the theory's originator and that person reserves the right to interpret all data, evidence, models, hypotheses, etc.  in their own way, then we have a closed circle.  Their theory can only be falsified on their terms.

 

...and 13 hours ago...

 

You reject modern physics and have your own, alternative physics.  Which means that there's no overlap between you and mainstream science. Just like these two circles.  So, you will only accept falsification of your theories within your own terms.  

 

...and what Josh wrote yesterday...

 

And @pantheory if you have theories that are not falsifiable, it seems fair enough to just admit that the theory therefore exist outside of the scope of bona fide science as Walter put it. 

 

My interest was and is in YOUR theories, not the double-slit experiment.

 

Josh was interested in YOUR theories, not the double-slit experiment.

 

You responded to Josh about YOUR theories, writing this.

 

If a theory is not falsifiable, it's not a theory at all.  At best it's speculation. Every theory of mine is falsifiable, but many mainstream theories are not falsifiable.

 

But, to date, you have not explained to Josh (or me) HOW your theories can be falsified.

 

So, please make good on your claim that your theories are falsifiable, by explaining how they can be falsified.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

It appears to me that you are not fully reading my postings and don't seem to understand what I have been saying many times. My postings in this thread are unrelated to theory. They are hypothesis, but they too are falsifiable as I have explained very many times. If you don't understand some of them, or how etc., please provide any one or more of my many exact quotes that you don't understand. Otherwise IMO I have answered and explained everything that you have asked or questioned, and have answered some of the same questions many times.

 

If you can't understand the "simple answers" IMO that I have been providing concerning this thread, I understand. But if not then you need to go to the Lion's Den thread to argue that I'm not answering your questions in your opinion, or other argumentative questions or statements.

 

Remember again, "falsification of theory" is another subject that can be discussed in another science thread of your choosing, or in the existing Lion's Den thread.

 

In my last posting I summarized everything related to the hypothesis of this thread, and how they are falsifiable. Below are the mainstream explanations of the differences of theory/ hypothesis that I have discussed.

Particles vs. waves

https://www.space.com/wave-or-particle-ask-a-spaceman.html

Physical Background Fields

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

[◊ Krowb ◊]

So I've been following this thread and I'm much closer to a barmaid than a physicist within this realm.  A quick perusal of google indicates studies have been performed where we can capture a single photon or simply stop light dead in its tracks.  If we can capture a single photon, why not run that single photon through the experiment and see what happens?  A quick perusal of the double slit experiment seems to mention streams of light or light sources, as opposed to a singular, irreducible packet of light.

 

I bet a firehose aimed at a double slit experiment may also indicate the wave-particle duality of water.  Or am I still fundamentally misunderstanding the experiment?

[WalterP]

15 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

It appears to me that you are not fully reading my postings and don't seem to understand what I have been saying many times. My postings in this thread are unrelated to theory. They are hypothesis, but they too are falsifiable as I have explained very many times. If you don't understand some of them, or how etc., please provide any one or more of my many exact quotes that you don't understand. Otherwise IMO I have answered and explained everything that you have asked or questioned, and have answered some of the same questions many times.

 

Pantheory,

 

If you have repeated yourself, that is because you have repeatedly misunderstood what Josh and I have been asking for.  

 

Both he and I expressed an interest in how your theories might be falsified, but your replies have been about how the double-slit experiment might be falsified.

 

I have tried several times to explain to you that your narrow interpretation of what is off or on topic should yield to Josh's interpretation, on two grounds.

 

First, he initiated this thread and secondly, he is a Moderator and neither of us have authority over him to decide what is on or off topic.

 

But, you have persistently stuck only to your interpretation of what is on or off topic.

 

It seems as if you cannot (or will not) be persuaded.

 

 

15 hours ago, pantheory said:

If you can't understand the "simple answers" IMO that I have been providing concerning this thread, I understand. But if not then you need to go to the Lion's Den thread to argue that I'm not answering your questions in your opinion, or other argumentative questions or statements.

 

See above.

 

15 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Remember again, "falsification of theory" is another subject that can be discussed in another science thread of your choosing, or in the existing Lion's Den thread.

 

Well, it looks as if, having failed to politely persuade you, I'll have to meet you in the Den.

 

15 hours ago, pantheory said:

In my last posting I summarized everything related to the hypothesis of this thread, and how they are falsifiable. Below are the mainstream explanations of the differences of theory/ hypothesis that I have discussed.

Particles vs. waves

https://www.space.com/wave-or-particle-ask-a-spaceman.html

Physical Background Fields

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, Krowb said:

So I've been following this thread and I'm much closer to a barmaid than a physicist within this realm.  A quick perusal of google indicates studies have been performed where we can capture a single photon or simply stop light dead in its tracks.  If we can capture a single photon, why not run that single photon through the experiment and see what happens?  A quick perusal of the double slit experiment seems to mention streams of light or light sources, as opposed to a singular, irreducible packet of light.

 

I bet a firehose aimed at a double slit experiment may also indicate the wave-particle duality of water.  Or am I still fundamentally misunderstanding the experiment?

 

A photon is not like other particles. Remember a photon must travel at the speed of light to exist. Once it is a particle it can no longer be a wave.

 

Yes, water can have a wave form to it but not when coming from a fire hose

 

The mainstream idea of light is that it is either a particle or a wave, but not both at the same time. The famous physicist Max Planck believed that light came in little packets which he called quanta. Einstein later called them photons.  Here's a link to the explanations of light.

 

https://physics.info/light/

[◊ Krowb ◊]

6 minutes ago, pantheory said:

A photon is not like other particles. Remember a photon must travel at the speed of light to exist. Once it is a particle it can no longer be a wave.

 

So if it's not traveling at the speed of light it ceases to exist?  That seems really weird.  But can light be slowed down?  Like we get slower when in water, so can light enter a medium that also slows its speed?  So the photon is still traveling at the speed of light, but that speed itself is reduced?

 

Truth be told, this is a really strange thing to wrap one's mind around.

[pantheory]

1 minute ago, Krowb said:

 

So if it's not traveling at the speed of light it ceases to exist?  That seems really weird.  But can light be slowed down?  Like we get slower when in water, so can light enter a medium that also slows its speed?  So the photon is still traveling at the speed of light, but that speed itself is reduced?

 

Truth be told, this is a really strange thing to wrap one's mind around.

 

Yes, according to mainstream physics light must travel at light speed. If it is interrupted by something in its path its energy is absorbed and it ceases to exist. In my own related hypothesis there is a background physical field that the particulates of light become part of. But that is not mainstream theory. 

 

(your quote)

"Truth be told, this is a really strange thing to wrap one's mind around."

 

I agree. This is mainstream physics' beliefs. That's why I'm here in this thread, because of some of the mainstream's unbelievable interpretations of reality. Note that many of the explanations that I've given in this thread are my opinion only, IMO, and based upon my own related hypothesis.

[pantheory]

On 3/2/2021 at 2:10 PM, pantheory said:

 

I've explained it before concerning this topic. The hypotheses that I have presented for the double-slit experiment involves two different proposals. One, is that light is both a particle and and a wave at the same time. The first such proposal was by Louis De Broglie. Joshpantera mentioned his pilot-wave proposal in this thread.

 

The second proposal that I made in this thread suggests that the Zero-Point-Field, the Higgs field, or another background field IMO probably interferes in some quantum experiments which is the reason for the required statistics of quantum mechanics. This is somewhat related to the double-slit experiment interpretations of the delayed choice experiment has some woo interpretations IMO -- such as the affect precedes the cause, and human observation affects the experimental results.

 

For this interpretation (for other experiments) of quantum mechanics, the mainstream must assume that there are no background-field hidden variables. My contention is that the mainstream must make this assumption, and for my proposal to be valid, their assumption must be wrong.

 

So if you look above, nowhere do I call this proposal a scientific theory since untested hypothesis remain hypotheses until  tested and more widely accepted, whereby at that time it might meet some definitions of theory. When I referred to falsification of  "scientific theories" I provided the link to the LIon's Den thread.

 

The quote above is where I summarized and explained how the hypothesis that I presented could be falsified. I will try again to explain it to you. Again, all such statements involved my statement IMO.

 

First Proposal: Light is both a particle and a wave at the same time:

 

Obviously this is not the mainstream interpretation. The mainstream believes that light travels as a probability wave. Once a photon is observed, the probability wave collapses and nothing remains but the photon which proceeds to the target wall. If one could prove that there is zero remaining energy left after the photon is absorbed, then my hypothesis would be disproved since then there would be no remaining wave energy as I propose.

 

Second proposal:   ---That the Zero-Point-Field, the Higgs field, or another background field interferes in some quantum experiments which is the reason for the required statistics and probabilities of quantum mechanics.

 

To falsify this hypothesis one should show that no background field could interfere with quantum experiments.

 

These are the ways that my proposed hypothesis related to the double slit experiment could be falsified/ disproved.

 

By similar means both related mainstream theories also might be disproved. Nearly all falsification of theories are very difficult, but that's not the problem. The problem IMO is that some theories cannot be falsified at all. Examples IMO are: String Theory, Multiverses, Inflation theory, dark energy, dark matter, warped and expanding space, quarks, gluons, the strong force, weak force, etc.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

Ok, this is where we can go ahead wrap up the issue of what's falsifiable or not. Ultimately the scope and point of me starting this thread was to follow up on our recent "crack pot" theory christian and his assertions that the double-sit experiment equals jesus!!!!!!

 

I just wanted to discuss, for the sake of people reading and participating, what the double-slit experiment actually is and what it entails. Aside from some crack pot christian announcing, without evidence, that it's jesus. While the experiment brings up many mysteries and woo woo ideas, that it proves jesus or god exists is NOT even on the table of consideration. That's the main point here. 

 

Reality 'may' be wave based entirely. 

 

Yet, that conclusion doesn't = jesus exists. 

 

Reality 'may' be something else, yet, still no equating to jesus exists.