Mordred

It's not good enough to determine which polarity path it takes. That is determined by the statistical average of the wavefunction. Aka Superposition. What kind of questions are we asking? Which part of the wave strikes the slits to get interferance? what is the percentage chance the particle is at that interferance position? What spin position was that particle in corresponding to the slits and chosen path? How many possible paths for each spin values? Which quantum number wavefunctions are involved? That's the details behind superposition those and other questions involved A particle always has momentum its position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously with certainty. See Heisenburg uncertainty principle This is extremely well tested and we can only reduce the uncertainty by weak interference. Thats why we use probability statistics (Superposition)

Whatever you feel, thread won't go far in this direction. I'm not here to cater to misconceptions and lack of understanding of physics. I'm here to help people understand physics and lose their misconceptions.

I don't believe that last post is worth responding to. You obviously aren't interested in understanding what a waveform means in QM. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function here is waveform collapse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse Now are you interested in learning how Physics treats superposition and wavefunction collapse or are you more interested in making baseless assertions?

if it doesn't have mass in superposition lol. Sorry that makes little sense, didn't you read the definition of superposition I posted?

you can certainly go ahead and try it. Experiments are good training aids. Yet consider the coupling constant for gravity is roughly [latex]1.7518*10^{-42} [/latex] I seriously doubt you will see any change in the experiment at zero g than on Earth. However you can calculate a rough estimate via Newtons gravitational formula [latex]f=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/latex] Just take the mass of the Earth and your radius with the mass of say a proton. You should be able to derive the amount of force g has on that proton. Or better yet run that formula with g= 9.8 m/s^2 and g equals zero. You'll find the difference so miniscule you won't be able to measure it with the mass of a proton. Not between 9.8 m/s^2 and zero g. proton mass 1.6726219 × 10^-27 Earth mass 5.972 × 10^24 kg radius of Earth 6,371 km Gravitational constant 6.674×10−11 N⋅m^2/kg^2 I will let you plug those into the above equation.

that is a very foolish assertion. Considering were trying to help you understand basic terminology and scientific methods. In all honesty QM merely looks tough, once you learn the terminology and realize those terminologies originated from mathematical terms. ie superposition, eugenvalue, eugenstate etc. QM becomes incredibly easy to understand. Same goes for relativity and Cosmology. The physics terminology is mostly mathematical terms. The only reason Swansont and myself know as much as we do is years of diligent study. Even today I still study, I've been doing so for over 35 years. I still learn new stuff to this very day.

crazier results still require understanding the meaning behind the terminology as well as understanding how physics works. If you understood the meaning of superposition then you would know there is nothing unusual or weird about it

No thats not how superposition works. Superposition states the probability of a particle being at a given location. That does not mean two places at once. That means a % chance of being at a particular location. Until you measure and determine the location all probable locations are possible. Have you never studied statistical mechanics? Superposition is a term used quite often in statistics. Not just quantum particles. Ripples on a pond, waves on a rope being two macroscopic examples. "In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle, also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems, the net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually"

I think you should understand the double slit experiment better first. Sending it up in a balloon won't change any results. Sorry The difference in g at height from Earth surface is far far too miniscule to affect the two slit.

the same way you calculate the affect of g on a macro object. And no we are not going to call NASA for you lol

Im sure that's probably on some project list. The factor here being sheer cost and complexity. This article describes some of the higher precision tests. Including the effect of gravity. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.0270&ved=0ahUKEwjrhKqls9nQAhUD9GMKHRFpBREQFggwMAc&usg=AFQjCNGG7wfR36VttVRAyWwgkaX3KfhS2A

If we cant measure gravity on a measured particle what makes you think we can measure gravity on a superimposed particle? Other than using interferometry as Swansont mentioned?. You really need to try to understand the sheer difficulty it is to avoid decoherence or measure g on any individual particle. Its not like we can place a proton on a scale lol.

no we haven't done these in zero G afiak but as Swansont mentioned gravity has an extremely miniscule effect on a particle. Its so miniscule of an effect we can't even measure it directly on an individual particle. If we could we would be A long ways to having a quantum gravity theory. Believe me any physicist would love to be able to quantize gravity at the individual particle level

There is potential procedures. One being weak measurements another involves utilizing entanglement. Both are tricky to setup to avoid decoherence. https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.livescience.com/27719-quantum-measurement-macro-decoherence.html?client=ms-android-samsung

yes very different

I think it means his computational universe program will fall apart or stop working lol. Blue screen of Death " Danger Danger Will Robinson, cannot compute." Anyone know where the universe reset button is ?

I agree so what lol. Of course cause leads to effect. The question is can you show that in every possible scenario. Invite me to your Nobel prize when you can do so. Particularly in course graining, entanglement and superposition just to give a few examples. Just as soon as you can prove the universe is a quantum computer running some program as your books suggest.

Here is a modern test that brings the accuracy of the one way speed of light tests down to 10^-19 @95 % confidence level. http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6954&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjwmaGj99jQAhVDwVQKHVxlAJEQFggUMAE&usg=AFQjCNEhZHeTyLlenVD-Xem4V95RFXRR8A

when quite the opposite occurs and the pressure/temperature performs the work for expansion.

precisely

For the record modern tests have tested isotropy of light to an accuracy of 10^-19. Wiki has 10^-17 but this came out later than the last reference test on wiki. http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6954&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjwmaGj99jQAhVDwVQKHVxlAJEQFggUMAE&usg=AFQjCNEhZHeTyLlenVD-Xem4V95RFXRR8A Fine mathematically show how two models that use precisely the same transformation equations will get different results. I'd like to see that from you as you cannot get different results if your using the same transformation equations. This is what your ducking by avoiding the math itself. Not your little car scenario you posted earlier. Which you used Galilean relativity and not Lorentz ether. Galilean relativity is the only absolute time model. As it does not have a time transformation between IF frames. Lorentz ether does. It has 4 independant variables/coordinates. t,x,y,z. that is 4 dimensions not three. Galilean only has three independant variables. x,y,z. Simply renaming Lorentz ether as a 3d model then applying it to your car scenario is false. Lorentz ether has 4 dimensions in its math not 3. No matter how many times I've repeated this to you. You flat out ignored it. As it doesn't match Tims view. Recall that Lorentz Ether cannot be mathematically distinquished from SR 4d. You yourself has stated this. So how did you mathematically show Lorentz ether as having a different result than SR. When every professional physicsist cannot. Come on Tim I'd like to see that mathematical proof of yours. Start with identical transformation equations and show a difference. PS no physicist considers a metaphysics argument as proof. Proof requires the math Transforms under absolute time between frames. [latex]t=\acute{t},x=vt,y=\acute{y},z=\acute{z}[/latex] This is Galilean 3d. Time is absolute in Galilean relativity. Lorentz transformation/Minkowskii/SR 4d. Not 3D Not 3D Not 3d not 3D. (do I need to repeat this further? [latex]t=\gamma\acute{t}, x=\gamma\acute{x}, y=\acute{y}, z=\acute{z}[/latex] Time is variable between frames. This is the identical transformation SR uses. So mathematically show me how you get two different results using [latex]t=\gamma\acute{t}, x=\gamma\acute{x}, y=\acute{y}, z=\acute{z}[/latex] In Lorentz ether vs Minkowskii/SR using the last transformation equations in all 3 cases?

You were already given an example of change without motion. Particle decay

I argue differently under the math. However I've already provided those reasons. Including showing the math for Lorentz ether to keep c constant. Which is not the same equations as the Lorentz transformations. But then according to Tim, Lorentz ether is 3d. Yet has variable time as a vector. Who is also claiming two metrics that has identical transformation rules between frames is somehow different. When mathematically the only difference is the removal of the Lorentz frame itself. Neither of which has the same transformation rules between frames as the proper definition of 3d Galilean relativity. Where all observers measure t itself as invariant and in this case c cannot be invariant.

If your referring to quantum consciousness your not dealing with superposition of the two slit experiment itself. Quantum consciousness is literally to determine how our consciousness works. rough analogy until you make a choice all possible choices are in superposition. Not much different from "until you make a measurement all possible outcomes are valid" Is there a purpose behind this?

Thats a bit of a fallacy. Just because we choose to measure something isn't weird.