merkababozo
Registered Member
Are the other two walls padded? ..... and how in damnation do you punch these suckers when your arms are neatly restained in strapped sleeves?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Double Slit Experiment Explained
- Thread starter mpc755
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Are the other two walls padded? ..... and how in damnation do you punch these suckers when your arms are neatly restained in strapped sleeves?
It means a molecule isn't like the 'solid' picture we draw, it can sort of squeeze itself through 2 gaps at a time.how a molecule can be in two places at the same time.
So a molecule is a "sort of 'liquid'", then.
So your answer is, its magic?
How about explaining the details about how a molecule can be in two places at the same time.
Ignore vkothii, he talks almost as much rubbish as you do. It's not magic and the molecule is not in 2 places at once, I'm not explaining it to you again. Go and look it up in a book or on the web.
You have got to be kidding!It means a molecule isn't like the 'solid' picture we draw, it can sort of squeeze itself through 2 gaps at a time.
So a molecule is a "sort of 'liquid'", then.
You haven't explained it a first time.Ignore vkothii, he talks almost as much rubbish as you do. It's not magic and the molecule is not in 2 places at once, I'm not explaining it to you again. Go and look it up in a book or on the web.
No one "really" explains it. All they say is that it's a particle when it needs to be a particle, and it's a wave when it needs to be a wave.
That's hard to argue against when your discussing already existing nonsense like a "massless particle", but when you are actually discussing something that most of us would consider to be a particle with mass, it gets more difficult to avoid answering specifically what is physically happening in order for the molecule to go through both slits.
It is very convenient that everyone ignores exactly what is physically occurring to the molecule before, during, and after its encounter with the slits.
Last edited:
Ignore prometheus, a molecule can't go through 2 different slits (separated by a distance) unless a molecule can be in 2 places. It isn't magic, it's what matter-waves do.
Photons, electrons, atoms, are all able to go through a double-slit, because they are in 2 places, at once.
But there are some people here who talk rubbish, about themselves, and direct it at others as well.
Fuck the lot of them, I say.
They can all (including that fuckwit with the stupid name who spells it like my one) get horribly fucked. No wait, they are already...
Photons, electrons, atoms, are all able to go through a double-slit, because they are in 2 places, at once.
But there are some people here who talk rubbish, about themselves, and direct it at others as well.
Fuck the lot of them, I say.
They can all (including that fuckwit with the stupid name who spells it like my one) get horribly fucked. No wait, they are already...
Ignore prometheus, a molecule can't go through 2 different slits (separated by a distance) unless a molecule can be in 2 places. It isn't magic, it's what matter-waves do.
But there are some people here who talk rubbish, about themselves, and direct it at others as well.
Fuck the lot of them, I say.
I don't envision a molecule to be like mercury. It is not simply going to separate and then come back together on the other side of the slits.
Some of the molecule will not make it through the slits.
I don't think it "squeezes" itself through both slits.
A wave that interacts with the slits, must have less energy as it exits the slits because some of the wave bounces off the barrier and does not make it through the slits.
The same would be true even if a molecule could "squeeze" itself through both slits and then I doubt it would be able to become the same molecule again as it exits the slits.
Obviously, I still like my theory the best where a molecule is creating a wave in the aether, similar to a boat creating a wake in water.
Just as a boat would get bounced around and have the direction it is traveling altered by the interference its wake creates as it exits the slits, the direction the molecule is traveling is altered by the interference in the aether its wave creates as it exits the slits.
There is no such thing as matter-waves. There is matter and there are waves. A molecule is matter that is creating a wave in the aether.
Last edited:
The interaction is negligible, or elastic - the energy the beam of molecules/atoms loses is about what it gains; it 'sees' electrons with a negative charge, and the electrons it has repels them, an elastic collision.
There is such a thing as matter-waves - if there wasn't you wouldn't be using an electronic computer, or an internet.
Wavefunctions aren't like waves on the surface of water; quantum particles aren't like little solid marbles.
You have to forget about those things when you look at photons etc.
There is such a thing as matter-waves - if there wasn't you wouldn't be using an electronic computer, or an internet.
Wavefunctions aren't like waves on the surface of water; quantum particles aren't like little solid marbles.
You have to forget about those things when you look at photons etc.
The interaction is negligible, or elastic - the energy the beam of molecules/atoms loses is about what it gains; it 'sees' electrons with a negative charge, and the electrons it has repels them, an elastic collision.
There is such a thing as matter-waves - if there wasn't you wouldn't be using an electronic computer, or an internet.
Wavefunctions aren't like waves on the surface of water; quantum particles aren't like little solid marbles.
You have to forget about those things when you look at photons etc.
Anything that is described in terms of matter-waves can be better described in terms of matter and waves.
Sure.
All you have to do first up, is determine what a wave is, and then what 'matter' is.
And you have to consider that 'solid' discontinuous bits of it, might not be 'solid' after all (or discontinuous).
I have to determine what a wave is and what matter is, but you do not have to define what a matter-wave is?
Doesn't sound logical. Especially because you have to define what matter is and what a wave is in order to define matter-waves. Matter and waves are sub components of matter-waves.
We all have a general understanding of what a wave is.
We all have a general understanding of what matter is.
A molecule is matter (i.e. a particle with mass).
It is easy to visualize a molecule creating a wave in the aether as it moves towards the slits.
It is easy to visualize this wave going through both slits and creating interference as it exits the slits.
It is easy to visualize the molecule going through one of the slits.
It is easy to visualize the molecule exiting the slit and having the direction it is traveling altered by this interference.
Matter-waves are difficult, I would say impossible, to visualize in their own right and to try and discuss how a matter-wave goes through both slits in the DSE requires a disconnect from reality.
Other behaviors in the DSE are easy to explain with the aether.
The act of "observing" the molecule interferes with the displacement wave being created in the aether, turning it into chop. Interference does not occur when the wave in the aether is turned into chop and the molecule will not create an interference pattern on the screen.
"Which-way" is defined as the molecule traveling along the same path multiple times. With the aether, this means the molecule will continually interact with its displacement wave created interference in the same manner and the molecule will strike the screen in the same general location each time.
I would like to see the DSE experiment performed with "which-way" with one and then two slits open. With one slit open, an interference pattern will not be created. With "which-way" and two slits open, an interference pattern will not be created, but the location where the molecule strikes the screen will be different than when only one slit was open because the molecule is still interacting with its displacement wave created interference.
Is there a Quantum explanation for why where the molecule winds up on the screen changes for one or two slits being open and "which way" in effect?
If there is enough randomness so you would know which slit the molecule is going to go through, but not go through exactly the same way each and every time, an interference pattern would still be created on the screen.
Such simple explanations for such a simple experiment.
Last edited:
Yep. So the next step in the process, is, define mass, and then: "a particle with mass".A molecule is matter (i.e. a particle with mass).
Of course, a massive particle is just a handy sort of label we use, because fundamental particles aren't like little marbles (once again). You can't really take the picture you have of waves that solid objects make in a liquid, straight to the picture of fundamental particles.
If you think about it, of course you can't assume that all waves look like the disturbances we can see in fluids (or anything else).
You seem to be discussing the wave/particle duality in quantum measurement; the delayed choice we can make. If you record the position of each 'part' of the interference as it evolves, one bit at a time, like in single-photon interference experiments, the record still shows the same result. You can't change the identity of a particle into a wave once you observe it - it's one or the other, and never both.
Yep. So the next step in the process, is, define mass, and then: "a particle with mass".
Of course, a massive particle is just a handy sort of label we use, because fundamental particles aren't like little marbles (once again). You can't really take the picture you have of waves that solid objects make in a liquid, straight to the picture of fundamental particles.
If you think about it, of course you can't assume that all waves look like the disturbances we can see in fluids (or anything else).
Eventually, some type of assumption must be made. For example, duality or "massless particle".
Whatever a molecule is, if there is an aether, then the molecule displaces the aether where it exists. It is easier to understand when discussing the molecule displacing the aether as it moves through the aether. I'm not sure what the quantum explanation is, but I believe no two things can occupy the same point in three dimensional space (3ds) and aether exists where ever matter does not. So as the molecule is moving through the aether, it is displacing it.
I'm not taking the picture of a solid object making a wave in a liquid directly to fundamental particles, but the concept of displacement is similar.
You seem to be discussing the wave/particle duality in quantum measurement; the delayed choice we can make. If you record the position of each 'part' of the interference as it evolves, one bit at a time, like in single-photon interference experiments, the record still shows the same result. You can't change the identity of a particle into a wave once you observe it - it's one or the other, and never both.
This is where I fundamentally disagree. A molecule is always a molecule. It is always a particle. Any attempt to observe it destroys the coherence of the wave it is creating in the aether.
The analogy of this is a boat in water. In order to "observe" the boat, a bunch of buoys are placed at the exits of the slits. The wake the boat is creating is going to be turned into chop by the buoys.
The boat is always a boat. It is never the wake.
A molecule is always a particle. It is never the displacement wave.
The only reason why a molecule is considered to have duality is because physicists needed an explanation as to the behaviors in the DSE.
If physicists had stuck with the idea that a photon was a wave, or even better a burst, and not had diverted into the idea that a photon was a "massless particle", the idea of duality would never had been necessary.
So if we back up and change the state of things so that Einstein had felt that there was an aether, then when he performed the photoelectric effect experiment, he would have concluded that the aether was forcing the electrons to be emitted from the metallic surface. The obvious explanation for this would have been that a photon is a burst traveling through the aether.
Then when the DSE was performed, it would have been obvious that the concept of the photon as a burst was still accurate because the burst was able to go through both slits simultaneously.
This would have carried over to a molecule in the DSE because, again, the best explanation would have been that the molecule was creating a displacement wave in the aether.
Photons are not a 'diversion', they exist, they don't 'carry' any mass around, but have momentum. This is explicable as a massless perturbation of the field it propagates through.
You might be mis-reading that article by Albert E. He still says that there are fields, and he also says much the same thing I just did about photons (as particles).
With long-wavelengths like radio, we treat it as a spherical type of wavefront. But every receiving station only 'sees' part of an expanding wave; fundamentally there is no difference between saying this and saying each receiver 'sees' a group of 'particles' (part-waves) called photons. When radiation has a small wavelength the particle picture 'fits' better than the one we use with electronics, say.
But that's us, not the radiation. That's our view, which is always 'approximate', although it's accurate (i.e. it's only as exact or precise as we make it). "If there is an aether", or "if there is no aether" is no longer relevant, where the EM field is concerned. Einstein says this too, more or less, in that article you linked to.
Your "burst" model isn't that far off the tracks, but the "of space" is somewhat - given the evidence I mean.
Assume space is empty (like a smooth body of water), and then you see disturbances in space - light particles/waves are sort of traveling bits of vibration - they have no definite position (like extended waveforms don't), they 'expand' things; they're like small bits of pressure, in some sense. But they 'oscillate' or vibrate periodically, this is their 'energy' - energy is a kind of expansion of something, then.
You might be mis-reading that article by Albert E. He still says that there are fields, and he also says much the same thing I just did about photons (as particles).
With long-wavelengths like radio, we treat it as a spherical type of wavefront. But every receiving station only 'sees' part of an expanding wave; fundamentally there is no difference between saying this and saying each receiver 'sees' a group of 'particles' (part-waves) called photons. When radiation has a small wavelength the particle picture 'fits' better than the one we use with electronics, say.
But that's us, not the radiation. That's our view, which is always 'approximate', although it's accurate (i.e. it's only as exact or precise as we make it). "If there is an aether", or "if there is no aether" is no longer relevant, where the EM field is concerned. Einstein says this too, more or less, in that article you linked to.
Your "burst" model isn't that far off the tracks, but the "of space" is somewhat - given the evidence I mean.
Assume space is empty (like a smooth body of water), and then you see disturbances in space - light particles/waves are sort of traveling bits of vibration - they have no definite position (like extended waveforms don't), they 'expand' things; they're like small bits of pressure, in some sense. But they 'oscillate' or vibrate periodically, this is their 'energy' - energy is a kind of expansion of something, then.
Last edited:
Photons are not a 'diversion', they exist, they don't 'carry' any mass around, but have momentum. This is explicable as a massless perturbation of the field it propagates through.
Agree. A massless perturbation of the field it propagates through is the definition of a wave, or I prefer, a burst. It is not a particle.
You might be mis-reading that article by Albert E. He still says that there are fields, and he also says much the same thing I just did about photons (as particles).
With long-wavelengths like radio, we treat it as a spherical type of wavefront. But every receiving station only 'sees' part of an expanding wave; fundamentally there is no difference between saying this and saying each receiver 'sees' a group of 'particles' (part-waves) called photons. When radiation has a small wavelength the particle picture 'fits' better than the one we use with electronics, say.
But that's us, not the radiation. That's our view, which is always 'approximate', although it's accurate (i.e. it's only as exact or precise as we make it). "If there is an aether", or "if there is no aether" is no longer relevant, where the EM field is concerned. Einstein says this too, more or less, in that article you linked to.
I disagree.
The "EM field" is "carry-able", meaning a photon has momentum through it, but it is not "displace-able", meaning the objects with mass in it do not displace it. Such a thing cannot exist.
For example, let's say a photon is traveling toward the earth in the direction along the earths orbit. In other words, the earth is heading toward the photon as the photon is heading toward the earth.
The photon is traveling through the EM field.
The photon strikes your eye.
The earth moves through the EM field where the photon had just traveled through.
What happened to the EM field that the photon had just traveled through that the earth now exists in?
The earth displaced the EM field.
The earth now exists where the EM field used to be.
Call it an EM field, call it the aether, it doesn't matter. Two things cannot occupy the same point in 3ds simultaneously.
That's why I prefer to talk about the EM field, or the aether, simply as space. The photon is a burst traveling through space.
There is still space in the atmosphere that the photon is capable of traveling through.
I believe displacement of the aether, EM field, space is fundamental.
Your "burst" model isn't that far off the tracks, but the "of space" is somewhat - given the evidence I mean.
Assume space is empty (like a smooth body of water), and then you see disturbances in space - light particles/waves are sort of traveling bits of vibration - they have no definite position (like extended waveforms don't), they 'expand' things; they're like small bits of pressure, in some sense.
How is a smooth body of water empty? The body is not empty, it contains water.
But they 'oscillate' or vibrate periodically, this is their 'energy' - energy is a kind of expansion of something, then.
The "something" is the aether (i.e. space itself).
The "something" is displace-able.
Last edited:
Why? Why do you think that every phenomenon in the universe should be explainable in terms of things which we experience on a day to day basis? Why should the photon be modellable using fluids? Why should water be the fluid which you always refer back to? We know water has properties that even most other fluids don't possess (expands when frozen and has extremely high specific heat capacity and surface tension). We also know of fluids which possess properties which water does not, such as superfluidity. Waves and perturbations in super fluids do not behave like waters in the ocean. Infact, waves in superfluids behave like quantum mechanical systems, because superfluidity is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. Furthermore, while mainstream physics considered space-time to be able to carry ripples (ie gravitational waves) there is no fluid which actually has the properties of space-time. Space-time has no tension in the stretching sense, if it expands it does not 'remember' this, there is no conservation of mass if you assign some kind of fluidic density to space-time.The "EM field" is "carry-able", meaning a photon has momentum through it, but it is not "displace-able", meaning the objects with mass in it do not displace it. Such a thing cannot exist.
If a fluid is something which is described by the Navier Stokes equations (not that you even know them) then quantum mechanical systems, as well as gravitational ones (including gravitational waves) are not describable as fluids.
Oh and to respond to the stupid, pseudo-rhetorical question you asked me about the Bucky ball being 'magic', both Prometheus and I have explained the quantum mechanical description to you and given you references which, if you were actually at all interested in learning you'd go and read, explain it in detail. I tell you go to look at Feynman's work and you complain he's part of the problem. So why ask me if you don't want to listen to the answer? Obviously it's because you aren't interested in the answer, you just want to try to get a discussion going on your idea (not a theory) and have morons like Vkothii pat you on the back. As threads in the maths & physics forum demonstrate, he's clueless to physics as well but he thinks that his computer science education is enough to allow him to leapfrog into postgrad theoretical physics material. The fact undergraduate theoretical physics isn't just computer science clearly escapes him so I wouldn't take too much of his logical deductions to heart (it's all the more ironic he complains people like myself think too much of themselves, after he tries to claim he's got the grounding to do theoretical physics on my level).
And was there some reason you completely ignored my request you point to a single aether based theory which is capable of living up to your claims about aether explaining the double slit experiment so 'beautifully'? Could it be you realised your mouth is writing cheques your brain can't pay?
Why? Why do you think that every phenomenon in the universe should be explainable in terms of things which we experience on a day to day basis? Why should the photon be modellable using fluids? Why should water be the fluid which you always refer back to? We know water has properties that even most other fluids don't possess (expands when frozen and has extremely high specific heat capacity and surface tension). We also know of fluids which possess properties which water does not, such as superfluidity. Waves and perturbations in super fluids do not behave like waters in the ocean. Infact, waves in superfluids behave like quantum mechanical systems, because superfluidity is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. Furthermore, while mainstream physics considered space-time to be able to carry ripples (ie gravitational waves) there is no fluid which actually has the properties of space-time. Space-time has no tension in the stretching sense, if it expands it does not 'remember' this, there is no conservation of mass if you assign some kind of fluidic density to space-time.
If a fluid is something which is described by the Navier Stokes equations (not that you even know them) then quantum mechanical systems, as well as gravitational ones (including gravitational waves) are not describable as fluids.
Oh and to respond to the stupid, pseudo-rhetorical question you asked me about the Bucky ball being 'magic', both Prometheus and I have explained the quantum mechanical description to you and given you references which, if you were actually at all interested in learning you'd go and read, explain it in detail. I tell you go to look at Feynman's work and you complain he's part of the problem. So why ask me if you don't want to listen to the answer? Obviously it's because you aren't interested in the answer, you just want to try to get a discussion going on your idea (not a theory) and have morons like Vkothii pat you on the back. As threads in the maths & physics forum demonstrate, he's clueless to physics as well but he thinks that his computer science education is enough to allow him to leapfrog into postgrad theoretical physics material. The fact undergraduate theoretical physics isn't just computer science clearly escapes him so I wouldn't take too much of his logical deductions to heart (it's all the more ironic he complains people like myself think too much of themselves, after he tries to claim he's got the grounding to do theoretical physics on my level).
And was there some reason you completely ignored my request you point to a single aether based theory which is capable of living up to your claims about aether explaining the double slit experiment so 'beautifully'? Could it be you realised your mouth is writing cheques your brain can't pay?
A photon, a burst traveling through the aether, goes through both slits in the DSE.
No need for duality nonsense.
No need for "which-way" nonsense.
No need for "observed" nonsense.
Just because you refuse to see the beauty in a photon as a burst traveling through the aether, doesn't mean it isn't beautiful.
This thread isn't even up to the standards of pseudoscience.
This thread isn't even up to the standards of pseudoscience.
How does a molecule go through both slits simultaneously in the DSE?
It doesn't. The molecule goes through one slit and the displacement wave it is creating in the aether goes through both.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.