Experiments seem to suggest that waves travel along multiple paths and interfere where undisturbed. Where the observer (or final path interaction) occurs it appears that the waves collapse and become particle-like. I have never seen an experiment that DIRECTLY observes waves, only the result of the final interaction. Even an ocilloscope captures the wave and translates the energy/information to another form before being translated to a form we can interpret easily.
where does light from a torch go?
- Thread starter emanresU
- Start date
Experiments seem to suggest that waves travel along multiple paths and interfere where undisturbed. Where the observer (or final path interaction) occurs it appears that the waves collapse and become particle-like. I have never seen an experiment that DIRECTLY observes waves, only the result of the final interaction. Even an ocilloscope captures the wave and translates the energy/information to another form before being translated to a form we can interpret easily.
You're not making much sense. You seem to have no concept of cause and effect. That there is no transfer of energy from one thing to another does not mean the energy doesn't exist.
Quantum mechanics says that something doesn't exist until you look at it, doesn't it?
You didn't answer the question. You are talking about a completely different issue than before.
Edit: actually, I've allowed you to pull me away from the original point as well. I'll rephrase:
Do you understant that the energy emission is detectable - and that this has been demonstrated - even if the photon is never detected?
No, that's not what it says. It says that there are indeterminate paired states (i.e. position and momentum), which are not resolved until a measurement is made.
No they don't. They block some and allow others to pass.
Same difference.
Well no! Though over simplified it would be more like you cannot know specific details until after observation.., and the act of observation can affect those details.
Are you sure? They interact with the wave, but the result of that interaction can only be determined after the interaction. And yes, we can asume from past experience what that result will be before we measure/detect it. So polarizing filters interact directly with waves, but that does not in itself constitute detection.
___________
Everyone here it seems.., is being run down a rabbit hole by dav57. This is not and never began as a discussion of any involved science. It is at best a conceptual and/or phylosophical debate, centered on a single interpretation of quantum theory. Dav57 is arguing that a theoretical interpretation of QM is reality.., when even those who deal with that particular interpretation daily, know it is a theoretical construct.
It is almost like arguing whether you are blind if you are standing in the dark!
No i'm afraid I'm unsure. Can you show me please.
Dav57, have you ever smashed you finger or a thumb.., with a hammer or in a closing door?.. Or any similar event?
Having experienced it once, do you avoid repeating the experience?
If so how is that different than what Russ suggests?
That'll do for me.
They only interact in that they either block or let through. Simple.
___________
Haha, you're funny. Not to worry, my rabbit hole leads to an Easter break soon, so you will get a break from me!
So by saying they allow others (undetected) to pass, you're saying that the undetected waves exist, ever though they're undetected.
Did you understand from our previous exchange:
....that this is done all the time? A couple of examples were given:
-Radio stations.
-Lasers pointed into space.
Another good one: The Aricebo radio telescope message into space.
In all of these examples, the energy emitted is measured and then nothing ever receives the majority of the emitted photons.
Another way to look at it: the emission and absorption are symmetrical but separate events. You know the photon was emitted exactly the same way you know it was absorbed: by measuring the energy at emission and absorption. Neither of these depends on the other.
You don't need to be guessing and speculating about things that have already been demonstrated. You just need to listen, learn and accept them.
Only if they have a future observer whereby information is able to pass through the the polorising plate.
If my idea is correct i.e. that waves can't be directly detected and instead only the final, particle-like interaction with the observer or receiver can be detected, then there would be no possible way to detect any property of the actual wave, including the relative speed between observer and wave. The speed would always be a constant based on the rate of direct interactions. I wonder if that fits with empirical evidence.
Well, sorry, but you are just plain wrong.
The point of observation is a cell. It has a photoreceptor. The photoreceptor is an integrator. This is where you are wrong--there is no such thing as quantum sensation.
No, you're wrong about that. It's not particle-like. It's energy-like. You are confusing waves, which are a bulk phenomena, with wavelets, which are quanta. The point of observation is a photoreceptor, which responds to waves, not quanta.
Yes we can see waves, because that's how a photoreceptor works.
You are confusing bulk energy transfer with quantum energy transfer. They are not the same. You don't understand how a photoreceptor works.
No it's very easy. Just learn about photoreceptors. The action potential will not fire unless the stimulus is above threshold. One photon by itself will not trigger the action hillock. It takes a bulk of them, an actual wave, to cross threshold. Beyond that the pumping action of the wave must be sustained, or there is no visual perception. You can test this by pulse-modulating a light source. When the pulse becomes too narrow, you will no longer detect the light. The screen you are looking at does this. You only think the solid color of the text is not oscillating. It is. You just can't see it because it's designed to oscillate faster than the rate of visual integration. That rate, by the way, is anything faster than about 20 Hz. (It varies slightly from person to person.) (Or if your text is black the same rule applies to the background color, which you think is not flashing.)