The most confusing and baffling in science? (QuantumMechanics\Double Slit experiment)

[ZetaX]

Sound is something we hear. Period.

No. Not period. I cited wikipedia to show that you are completely wrong here, and any book on acoustics or (pressure) waves will agree with me here. Sound is a kind of pressure waves. This is not more and not less than the information it carries. I never said that any measurements define sound, as by itself it is an abstract concept; we can verify a system to behave that way, though.

You artificially and without a good argument claiming that certain pressure waves are the very same as the perception they cause is the problem and I still don't get why you do so as your explainations just sound like repetitions or restating what I said. The former can be measured in many ways, e.g. a microphone, and then be perceived in entirely distinct ways, e.g. a diagram of its Fourier decomposition. This is easily accessible to a deaf person, too. The part that isn't accessible is the persception of sound itself; I can easily describe sound to a deaf person by showing them the wikipedia article; what I cannot do is give them the feeling of hearing. That we (currently) can measure (or percieve so) exactly one of them should already be enough argument that sound and its perception are not equal, neither in a physical nor a philosophical sense. We can even measure it entirely without ears by e.g. looking for the density change's effect on light.

Your statements of that may or may not be a restatement of what I just said after acknowledging the difference between the waves (which by definition contains all information sound has; your claim it not to is at least unfounded and very likely wrong) and the perception. All you do is claiming to be right with your definition while almost everyone else has already agreed on a different one; and the accepted one is in no way less able to express the properties, just in a different way.

If you want this discussion to be meaningful, you will have to scroupulously write down the axioms, the basics of your claims, including definitions. Otherwise I don't see how this can continue without being another couple of those repetitions. And at least follow the usual meaning (i.e. accepted sources) of words when you define something; if you disagree with them being correct you will still have to use another phrase unless you want to go for lots of equivocation fallacies.

[lodestar]

Oh no! Wikipedia says I'm wrong... my life is ruined.

Seriously now, as I said before, one can't just reason his way out of an epistemic closure, and that's the issue here. Again, you're committing the exact same error, answering the problem tautologically, and if you don't realize that from the explanation above, there's nothing else I can do. As I also said before, from my own personal experience the only way out of an epistemic closure is through some sort of cathartic experience.

There's no way for this discussion to become meaningful, because we're just not talking about the same thing. The issue here are the metaphysical and epistemological premises of modern science, and you confuse those premises with reality itself, that's why you always revert to that tautology without realizing. Now you even required me to do the same, realizing correctly that's the only way for this to continue. Indeed, that's the only way for this to continue, but that would be reducing reality to the particular set of premises you use to increase your grasp on the phenomenon. Instead of me getting you out of the epistemic closure, you want me to join you inside it.

This is like someone who left Plato's cave trying to explain to someone inside how the outside world is, and I don't say that to demean you in any way. No hard feelings.

[ZetaX]

Yes, there is indeed no way this to become meaningful, but because of you not giving the goddamn definitions even if asked directly. You didn't even try. Instead you iterate this claim that I only give tautologies. We can't talk about the same thing because you, and only you, don't make any attempt to clarify, instead giving conclusions only.

[lodestar]

Yes, there is indeed no way this to become meaningful, but because of you not giving the goddamn definitions even if asked directly. You didn't even try. Instead you iterate this claim that I only give tautologies. We can't talk about the same thing because you, and only you, don't make any attempt to clarify, instead giving conclusions only.

OK... one last try...

You don't realize that what you are calling 'definitions' are actually reductions, because they don't define the phenomena other than within the scope of the field you're interested in. I defined sound as the phenomenon we experience when we hear, in order to explain how when we reduce a phenomenon to its quantifiable properties, we're leaving precisely the essence of it behind, the part which can't be reduced without compromising the phenomenon itself. You say that's wrong, but your argument is precisely to assert the same reduction again, not realizing the tautology of your response. When I point that, you even go one step further and ask me to state the issue within the same limited scope, but the whole problem is precisely that it doesn't exist within that scope.

What you're asking simply doesn't make sense, and you'd realize that if you understood the problem. If I give you the reduced definitions you're asking, I'm not talking about the same thing anymore and the problem no longer exists. For me to move into your epistemic closure won't continue the discussion, will just turn it into a discussion about something else.

Anyway, I give up. As I already said, you can't reason your way out of this. Either you get it or you don't.

Edited February 15, 2014 by lodestar

[Right]

If we for your argument's sake momentarily abandon empiricism, then we by Occam's Razor choose the simplest hypothesis, which is that the universe simply came into being: an intelligent designer is not necessary.

Ockham's Razor is a good criticism of ID, but not a good reason to believe the universe came from nothing (ex nihilo).

[Right]

lodestar, you clearly have a knack for subtle philosophical thinking, and for arguing. But if you want to discuss those sorts of topics with folks without frustrating them, you're probably best off taking up a pragmatist outlook. Post-modern theory, radical skepticism, representationalism, and pretty much all of epistemological concerns are just headaches waiting to happen.

Besides, most scientists are pragmatists (even if they don't know how to articulate or reason though all the philosophical humdrum). In the end, I don't believe those sorts of fine grained insights are necessary to carry on in every day life or peoples' respective fields (Barring philosophy teachers).

[lodestar]

lodestar, you clearly have a knack for subtle philosophical thinking, and for arguing. But if you want to discuss those sorts of topics with folks without frustrating them, you're probably best off taking up a pragmatist outlook. Post-modern theory, radical skepticism, representationalism, and pretty much all of epistemological concerns are just headaches waiting to happen.

Well... I don't know if you read the whole topic, but if you do, you'll see the point is precisely that these "fine grained insights" make a difference in Quantum Mechanics. The headaches aren't waiting to happen anymore, they already happened there. Most scientists are banging their heads on the wall for decades precisely because they don't have the training to recognize the problem.

I know it can be frustrating, but there's no way to take a pragmatist outlook in this, because that itself is part of the problem. It's what I tried to explain to ZetaX. I don't want to frustrate him any more than he already seems to be, so that's why I made clear there's no point in continuing that discussion. On the other hand, Z-Man obviously got a lot closer to what I mean and isn't struggling with the same issue, so the frustration isn't due to the subject as much as it is due to the willingness of the interlocutor to walk the same mental path.

[Right]

Most scientists are banging their heads on the wall for decades precisely because they don't have the training to recognize the problem.

On the other hand, Z-Man obviously got a lot closer to what I mean and isn't struggling with the same issue, so the frustration isn't due to the subject as much as it is due to the willingness of the interlocutor to walk the same mental path.

You're technically right, that the problem of being confused is not directly solved through pragmatism. But it does indirectly answer the question of why quantum stuff is so magical with a resounding "I don't give a damn, so long as I know what its doing."

I believe a quality of a good philosopher is to be charitable. When I am in a disagreement, or misunderstanding arises, I always assume (at least outwardly) that the fault is my own. In addition, I have found that use of "I" based opinionated language makes much more fruitful discussions, and fewer bent egos. <- Example

[lodestar]

You're technically right, that the problem of being confused is not directly solved through pragmatism. But it does indirectly answer the question of why quantum stuff is so magical with a resounding "I don't give a damn, so long as I know what its doing."

That isn't much of an answer, is it? Specially when the whole point is that once you realize the root of the problem is a faulty set of premises, any magic disappears.

I believe a quality of a good philosopher is to be charitable. When I am in a disagreement, or misunderstanding arises, I always assume (at least outwardly) that the fault is my own. In addition, I have found that use of "I" based opinionated language makes much more fruitful discussions, and fewer bent egos. <- Example

Sure, prefixing every statement with "in my opinion" may be more gentle, but that's implicit in any philosophical talk. What any philosophical proposition is saying is "this is according to my personal experience, isn't the same in yours?". Philosophers saved a lot of pen and ink by agreeing on that since Socrates, but if you're not aware of that fact, it looks like they are making peremptory statements all the time.

Philosophy exists precisely because we can't communicate most personal truths directly through language. One has to appeal to the same experience in the interlocutor in order to transmit the idea. Most of the time, the main cause of disagreement or misunderstanding in informal talks like this is when one person has some scientific training but lacks the philosophical training, and tends to see everything as a scientific proposition. He understands every statement as a claim the other has to provide proof for, while in fact the other is merely appealing to the same in what he already knows. This misunderstanding is a modern phenomenon. You won't find instances of that before the 17th century.

Take for instance this misunderstanding with ZetaX regarding sound. When I say sound is something we hear, that's obviously not a claim I can provide proof for, because it's impossible for me to prove even that there's any other consciousness beyond my own, let alone prove that what I call sound is the same thing someone else calls sound. Obviously, I'm merely appealing to his own personal experience that sound is what he hears. I can't do the same with someone who was born deaf and never experienced sound, hence, that's obviously the irreducible part of what sound is. His objection is that sound actually is pressure waves, and quotes Wikipedia to prove it. In other words, instead of relating what I said to his own personal experience, he's taking it as a scientific claim that needs proof, and immediately finds opposing proof to counter it, not realizing what I'm saying is something he already knows. Curiously, he's acting precisely as someone who was born deaf and couldn't know what sound is besides its reducible parts! A conversation is impossible, because I'm trying to transcend the concept and know what sound really is, he's trying to increase his grasp on the concept he can quantify and provide proof for.

This has become kind of pathological in recent years. Take the example of Patricia and Paul Churchland, who say in the future we should eliminate all mental phenomena and describe all mental states based on concepts from neuroscience. We can't say "I feel tired", we can only say "my serotonin levels are low". Obviously, that's merely confusing a personal state that can't be communicated, with the reducible, communicable part that can be verified by someone else.

[ZetaX]

I am completely realizing what I already know. What you are not realizing is that you for absolutely no reason use "sound" for what is actually "perception of sound"; there is a reason not to confuse those, and I can only conclude that you are ignoring that on purpose. I quoted wikipedia to give additional credibility to my claim that both are distinct and "sound" alone is the physical component, nothing more and nothing less.

You still insist on your equivocational fallacy here: I introduced the difference between the two to answer your question "if a tree falls and nobody is listening, does it make sound?". And as I said, in physics, the answer is yes, but by the very statement of nobody listening, no perception of sound is generated. Instead of either argueing where this short argument goes wrong or to admit it is right, you started a huge debate on the meaning of sound, which was mostly aimed at the claim that sound=it's perception, and not at all at the arguments given. Sorry, but this sounds rather dishonest to me.

[Z-Man]

Self-split of the non-QM stuff.

[lodestar]

Why would I want to do that? What reason do I have to act dishonestly? It's not like there's some great gain from winning an argument here. If you want to believe my motivation is to deceive and frustrate you for my personal amusement, it's up to you. All I say is that the more you believe in that, the further you will be from actually understanding what the problem is.

I'll try to explain again, for the last time. If you still think I'm just being dishonest after this, well... it's up to you.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not ignoring it, it's just not what I'm talking about. You can call it sound, or perception of sound, or quajibo, or XPTO or anything else. Even if we take all possible definitions of sound in physics, in neuroscience, in musical theory, all those definitions together don't exist by themselves without a cognitive phenomenon that we call sound.

So, what you're saying is that what you call 'sound' is the physical component and what you call 'perception of sound' is the neurological or psychological component? Fine. Great. But no matter in how many components you break it up, there's one cognitive phenomenon above all the reduced components that you can't break up in parts without compromising its own existence. The physical component doesn't exist alone. The cognitive component doesn't exist alone. All those exist merely as abstract reductions of some phenomenon. That phenomenon is what I'm calling sound. You don't want to call it sound, fine. It's not important how you call it, what's important is that it's not confused with one of its reductions in a particular field.

You say I'm confusing 'perception of sound' with the 'sound' itself, but what I keep saying and you don't understand is that the perception of sound is a reduction of the cognitive phenomenon 'sound' to its perceptible properties, pretty much like saying sound is 'pressure waves' is a reduction of the phenomenon sound to its physically measurable properties, and saying sound is an effect in our nervous system is a reduction of the phenomenon sound to the properties observed in an MRI scanning the brain of someone experiencing sound. No matter how detailed are your reductions of those phenomena to specific fields, they are not what the phenomenon is in essence. No matter how detailed are those reductions, if you show them to a person who never experienced sound, that person won't have the same cognitive experience you or I have. It doesn't matter how you call it, what matters is that beyond all reductions, there's a cognitive phenomenon that can't be reduced to any of that or even all together. That's what the phenomenon actually is as we conceive it, or as we call it, its essence.

I didn't started a huge argument on the meaning of sound. As I said above, the meaning of 'sound' doesn't matter at all. The issue isn't what 'sound' means, the issue is that you don't confuse something with its quantifiable properties. You can't understand the thomist interpretation of QM I'm talking about here if you make that confusion.

Edited February 16, 2014 by lodestar

[Right]

That isn't much of an answer, is it?

Being sympathetic to pragmatic insights, I think its a fine answer. The magic is irrelevant.

Philosophers saved a lot of pen and ink by agreeing on that since Socrates, but if you're not aware of that fact, it looks like they are making peremptory statements all the time.

Yes, but A.) most people are not of a philosophical mind set/background and B.) only among your most vulcan philosophers should diplomacy be cast aside. I don't mean to put you on the defensive at all, I just recommended it since someone was getting frustrated by the appearance of factual speech.

Curiously, he's acting precisely as someone who was born deaf and couldn't know what sound is besides its reducible parts!

For all we know, he may be right. Sound may be nothing beyond its reducible parts. Materialism is a common scientific assumption. To say that the experience of sound is irreducible violates the materialist assumption. This is the assumption the two of you appear to be dancing around.

Obviously, that's merely confusing a personal state that can't be communicated, with the reducible, communicable part that can be verified by someone else.

Its only a confusion if the mind-brain identity theory is wrong. And the jury is still out.

[Dust]

can anyone recommend some good youtube videos for people that want to dive into this?

and

[lodestar]

Being sympathetic to pragmatic insights, I think its a fine answer. The magic is irrelevant.

Pragmatism is an heuristic, not logic. When you throw out the part of the question you can't answer as irrelevant, any answer is fine. That's a nice trick. I tried to do that on my exams once, saying the question I didn't knew the answer to was irrelevant. The teacher didn't buy it.

Yes, but A.) most people are not of a philosophical mind set/background and B.) only among your most vulcan philosophers should diplomacy be cast aside. I don't mean to put you on the defensive at all, I just recommended it since someone was getting frustrated by the appearance of factual speech.

It's not about being defensive. If a person doesn't have the absolutely minimum philosophical background, he/she won't understand the issue here and will struggle with it, trying to make it fit the premises of the scientific method.

For all we know, he may be right. Sound may be nothing beyond its reducible parts. Materialism is a common scientific assumption. To say that the experience of sound is irreducible violates the materialist assumption. This is the assumption the two of you appear to be dancing around.

Have you read the whole topic? The point here is precisely how quantum phenomena are empirical evidence that the materialist-reductionist-mechanicist premises are wrong. If I am trying to explain that, it's obvious that someone who can't even contemplate the possibility that a being is something else beyond the sum of its parts won't ever understand it. Obviously, when someone goes a step beyond and confuses the premises of materialism with reality itself, he can't conceive a reality without that, and any attempt to explain this is a waste of time.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that materialism is wrong, although that's pretty easy to do when you throw away the root fallacy of separating the cogniscent subject and cognizable object. I'm just saying that as long as you think materialism is the reality itself, you won't understand what I'm talking about.

Its only a confusion if the mind-brain identity theory is wrong. And the jury is still out.

The jury is still out because they are judging from the same root fallacy I mentioned above.

[ZetaX]

Claiming a world of philosophers (and scientists) just being to dumb to resolve the problem while you consider it easy says a lot about you. It says another that in the past you claimed to have knowledge about things (e.g. relativity, and your resulting claim that the earth is in the center of the universe), but when errors were pointed out you either ignored them or claimed that this is not your own theory but someone else's, yet not giving any sources even after being asked several times.

And still you expect me to believe you on those things I can't judge myself, while for all those I can I see how wrong you are¿

Anf thanks@Right, unless lodestar's gyour posts are clear and understandable while only taking a third of the words. Now I at least got what he wants to say.

[lodestar]

Claiming a world of philosophers (and scientists) just being to dumb to resolve the problem while you consider it easy says a lot about you.

Now you're just inventing things. I never said the whole world is too dumb to resolve the problem. Quite the opposite. I said precisely that you can't reason your way out of it, because you tend to reason in the very same terms that lead to the the problem. It's a cultural phenomenon, not an intellectual shortcoming. I said more than once that one usually needs some sort of cathartic experience to understand the root of it, because that's my own personal experience and of other people I know.

I never said it's easy. I said "once you realize the root of the problem, the solution is simple". That's not the same as saying it's easy.

It says another that in the past you claimed to have knowledge about things (e.g. relativity, and your resulting claim that the earth is in the center of the universe),

I never claimed to have that knowledge. Again, quite the opposite. I said precisely that in those issues being debated here, no one can claim knowledge of actual observational facts of the universe besides what we can see from the very same geocentric frame that's in question, and those facts support many possible views, including the geocentric and big-bang/relativistic.

I never claimed to have knowledge of relativity, beyond the elementary needed to support the claim above, which isn't much. As a matter of fact, I said more than once that I actually dropped physics when I realized my real interest was philosophy.

I never claimed the Earth is the center of the universe. I said more than once that I'm not a geocentrist, and not a relativist either. What I said is that this is also a valid interpretation of the few observational facts that we have, and they don't require as many nonsensical assumptions as the mainstream alternative.

but when errors were pointed out you either ignored them or claimed that this is not your own theory but someone else's, yet not giving any sources even after being asked several times.

That's a lie. Not only I went out of my way to answer everything pertinent to the topic, I mentioned several sources. I can remember now the mentions to Wolfgang Smith's Quantum Enigma and The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, Hubble's Observational Approach to Cosmology, Einstein and Infeld, Robert Sungenis' Galileo Was Wrong, Ludwik Kostro's Einstein and the Ether, the articles on quasar redshift quantization, and many others.

And still you expect me to believe you on those things I can't judge myself, while for all those I can I see how wrong you are¿

I don't expect you to believe in anything. Either you do or you don't. I could have simply ignored you when it was clear you don't understand the issue, but I even tried to explain to you many times.

Anf thanks@Right, unless lodestar's gyour posts are clear and understandable while only taking a third of the words. Now I at least got what he wants to say.

If you actually understood what I'm saying, you wouldn't feel the need to lie about my previous posts like you're doing now. If you disagree with me or my presence here makes you uncomfortable, just say so and we can try to find an arrangement other than the moderators closing the topic like they did before. What you just did is simply dishonest.

[ZetaX]

You said that it is easy that materialism is wrong. I don't know of any serious philosopher who would say that with such certainty, and even less I see the "world" accepting that. So my claim stands.

Ok, you claim to have answered every question¿ I will repeat one you didn't: how should aether explain that a moving M-M-experiment (e.g. on a car) gives the same results as a standing one¿ You mentioning _names_ and doing some quote-mining on non-quantified sentences (I remember them: they were really just that and philosophical at best, which for a scientifc question is worthless) is not a source; a source is a paper containing details and experiments. You are again invited to give any on those geocentrism-equivalence-claims.

And if you call me a liar, then I invite everyone to look up the first thread (probably a month ago) were you started this.I am not dishonest here, I spoke the truth when I said that Right's version was much more understandable to me.

[lodestar]

You said that it is easy that materialism is wrong.

Let's see what I actually said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone that materialism is wrong, although that's pretty easy to do when you throw away the root fallacy of separating the cogniscent subject and cognizable object.

So, as I just answered above, I'm not saying solving the problem it's easy. I'm saying it becomes easy once you understand the root of the problem. That's the hard part.

I don't know of any serious philosopher who would say that with such certainty, and even less I see the "world" accepting that. So my claim stands.

You don't know many serious philosophers then. Leibniz, Lavelle, Guénon, etc. We could probably enumerate all the traditionalists here.

Ok, you claim to have answered every question¿ I will repeat one you didn't: how should aether explain that a moving M-M-experiment (e.g. on a car) gives the same results as a standing one¿

Not only I answered that, but you even replied to my answer itself, without objecting to it in any way, just ranting on other unrelated issues. You do have a short memory...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67713-Making-Earth-the-Center-of-the-Solar-System?p=942816&viewfull=1#post942816

You mentioning _names_ and doing some quote-mining on non-quantified sentences (I remember them: they were really just that and philosophical at best, which for a scientifc question is worthless) is not a source;

You really have memory issues. I gave you names and quotes after you asked me for "Any quote, or even better, any explaination, by a real physicist saying that a geocentric system solves such problems is also welcome":

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67713-Making-Earth-the-Center-of-the-Solar-System?p=942990&viewfull=1#post942990

Not only you don't remember that I did the "quote-mining" because you asked for it, you obviously remember wrong, because there's nothing philosophical about them.

a source is a paper containing details and experiments. You are again invited to give any on those geocentrism-equivalence-claims.

You mean, like the Galileo Was Wrong book I already recommended twice?

And if you call me a liar, then I invite everyone to look up the first thread (probably a month ago) were you started this.

Well... I provided the links above to make that task easier for everyone.

I am not dishonest here, I spoke the truth when I said that Right's version was much more understandable to me.

Right isn't saying the same thing I'm saying, as it's obvious from my last response to him. He's still taking the materialism-determinism-mechanicism issue to be merely ideological, while the whole point here is that quantum phenomena presents empirical evidence against it.

Seriously, this topic is no longer productive, and from the last posts, it seems you have something personal to settle with me, considering your insistence on distorting what I said. I won't contribute with that. Goodbye.

Edited February 18, 2014 by lodestar

[ZetaX]

On the materialism, you seem to not get the difference between hard evidence (which you seemingly claim to have) against a, somewhat reasonable founded, oppinion like those you mentioned have. But I will just assume that you want to say that it follows from another property (that "fallacy"'s rebutal), which you do not have evidence for (it is an oppinion, instead), and can then live with that.

Bu those quotes are _not_ quote-mining¿! Apart from them not being any scientific evidence (see my previous post what is), they are not in favor of your claim. For example, the one by Hubble just mentiones that as one of many reasons to base it on as a short and simplified explaination, the actual data and facts are something entirely different. Even if that would be what those intended (it isn't), that would just be an argument from authority without data.

And by the way, as you also see in that thread I asked you more questions, which, like this time, you chose to ignore. Says probably all. And by the way, the only personal part is that you are claiming to be right while ignoring arguments, evidence and even giving lies, and I can't stand such arrogance.

And on M-M: I essentially ignored that one reponse back then as it was not on topic: why is vacuum suddenly relevant¿ The light itself is in vacuum inside e.g. a tube. That air is outside of it is irrelevant, or if it would be, just put a fan beside a standing M-M experiment to check.

[lodestar]

I can't stand such arrogance.

That explains it all. You think I was arrogant, you can't stand that, and now you want to expose me for that? Fine. Then just say that to me as the civilized human being I assume you are, and I'll even agree with you that I was arrogant at some points. I was arrogant because some members were patronizing me, trying to ridicularize what I said without any substantial argument and ostracize me for disagreeing, and I believe arrogance is an adequate answer in that situation. I wasn't arrogant with Z-Man or Right, for instance, who not only made the discussion very productive, but were serious about it, without hysterical reactions.

There's no need to turn this into a personal matter or distort what I said to present me as something I'm not. If you still have any issues left, just say it and we settle it. If you have questions you'd like an answer for, being aggressive or disrespectful when you ask them isn't the best approach.

By the way, if you have questions regarding the geocentrism issue, ask in the other topic Z-Man created for that. If you have questions regarding the QM issue, ask here.

Edited February 18, 2014 by lodestar

[GrahammcCartney1984]

So if you have no clue what the double split experiment is, go watch this very clear and understandable video!

Now, from now on I assume that you know what surprising results came out of the experiment.

Apparently, when tiny particles are shot at the screen with two slits, but they are shot ONE AT A TIME... there is STILL an interference pattern!

It get's crazier though, as can be seen in the video. As soon as scientist place a detector at one of the slits and the experiment is repeated... the interference pattern is gone, and the usual 2 stripe pattern can be seen.

Now.. from watching another video I heard a scientist say that when they unplugged the detector, but left it at one of the slits.. the interference pattern came back!

How spooky is that.. (

)

So, what's my point? Well I made this topic more to ask a question. I can't think of another place to ask right now, so here it goes.

Question

When the particle emitter fires the particles one at a time at the screen.. what exactly is it aimed at? The spot in the middle of the two slits? Just the screen? Will the particles come out at an angle randomly? What's going on?

A bit further..

If you are really interested in this, try watching this video:

This one is quite hard to follow for me, but what I could understand (I think) is that the fact whether the light goes through slit 1 or 2, is established after the light has even hit the screen where it will create a pattern. And there is a 50% chance of them knowing which slot it went through, and 50% where they don't know. I think that whenever they COULD (they didnt even check, but the mere fact that they could check) which slit it went through, there was a 2 slit pattern, and whenever they could not establish the fact, there was an interference pattern. This is mindboggling because the experiment setup did not change! This means that putting a detector at one of the slits has no effect on the behaviour of the particle!

So what the peep is going on? I think the guy in the last video gives some explanation but understanding that as well was too much for 1 video.. also I think he's not really a scientific scientist so to speak, but more a philosophical.

Anyway, besides all this I'm curious if there are people here who actually know a thing or two about this. I've seen some people writing smart stuff about physics before on these subforums

Cheers!

3 minutes ago·Shared publiclyI dont believe this..The only explanation i can think of for this occuring is that the individual particals of light fired through, are behaving initially like electrons orbiting an atom. They come into near contact with other atoms already in the room and are repelled away from one another creating an interferance pattern. The compostition of matter in the actual oxygen around the slits effects the individual photons. Everything has a mass including light and the photons create that pattern due to bouncing off other atoms. Maybe the equiptment used to observe the process actually interferes with the rotation and deflection of paticals making the photon behave like a wave... if this is true they have accidently discovered a way of altering a particals state!

[Everten P.]

An idea I have for this is that electrons act like waves and that measuring device is the thing that caused it, in any way either light or material had to have interfered, the light would have affected the electrons with electomagnetism or radio waves. If it was a material sensor maybe the light had refracted it or had vibrated (as atoms like to vibrate and move around ) at a frequency that had somehow affected it. It's just a phenomenon that we literally cannot detect (or at least not yet) because anything we do trying to detect it disturbs it. Also we should remember electrons(albeit small) are matter so could it have been subject to the law of general relativity and had separated into energy that had shown through the two slits at different frequencies.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Everten P.

[minaret]

On 2/1/2014 at 6:44 AM, N_las said:

Imagine that Particles propagate as waves, but interact as particles:

The canon shoots a particle that propagates as wave at the wall with the slits. Dependend on the amplitudes of the propagating wave one can determine the probability of the particle to interact with the wall. For the sake of argument: Say the probability is 80%. If that is the case, than it obviously doesn't travel further. In the rest of the cases (20%) the particle won't interact with the wall but propagate throug the slit. Since it hasn't interacted with the wall, it still resembles a wave originating at the canon, and an interference pattern will form. The Amplitudes of the interference pattern at the back wall now determines the propability were the particle will interact with the wall. If you repeat the experiment with many particles, the pattern becomes visible.

If you place a detector at the slits, you force the particle to interact with the detector. There is now way of detecting a particle, without interacting with it. So the particle interacts with the detector at the two slits. Now it will propagate as a wave further to the back wall, but the wave doesn't have its origin point at the canon anymore, but at the point were the detector interacted with it, in front of one of the slits. A wave originating from that point doesn't create an interference pattern.

So just keep in Mind: Particles ALWAYS propagate as waves, but interact as particles. (obviously that ist just a simplification)

Can you explain how this interpretation is consistent with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment?

[MinimumSky5]

Short answer: Quantum Superposition

Long answer: the photon is neither a wave or a particle, but exists as both at the same time until it is observed, at which point it collapses into one or the other, depending on the design of the experiment.