Strange Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: Because it was the best model they could come up with at the time. There has been a century of testing of quantum theory. It has been confirmed in all experiments. That is slightly more convincing than your baseless claim that it is wrong. 2 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: They all still agree much of quamtum physics DOESN'T seem to make sense. Who is "they"? And why does the universe have to "seem to make sense"? 3 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: Thats why they have been looking for a Unified FIELD Theory NOT a new mathematical model as someone suggested, a Field Theory that makes sense of the knwon mathematics. Any unified field theory will still have to be quantised. (Otherwise it will be inconsistent with experimental evidence; in other words, it won't match reality.)
Oldand Dilis Posted July 7, 2019 Author Posted July 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, Strange said: You can't Look at minute 6:30 if it is only travelling forward and not part of a wave how can it be recorded..... anybody getting that AHA moment yet??? Please someone!
Strange Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: Look at minute 6:30 if it is only travelling forward and not part of a wave how can it be recorded..... At 6:00 "this is to create a water vapour so that the light scatters out" You are seeing light reflected by water droplets.
Ghideon Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: anybody getting that AHA moment yet??? Please someone! Aha! That’s how you got it all wrong! Now you can use the forum and ask questions about how light and the various models behave and when they apply instead of posting more invalid models based on misinterpretstions of videos. Edited July 7, 2019 by Ghideon Added advice
Oldand Dilis Posted July 7, 2019 Author Posted July 7, 2019 Ok fair enough, I missed that. Anyone else like to do the extra walls of photon sensitive material at angles and rub that in my face too. Please do.
Strange Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 18 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: Anyone else like to do the extra walls of photon sensitive material at angles and rub that in my face too. Please do. Look up the photoelectric effect
Oldand Dilis Posted July 7, 2019 Author Posted July 7, 2019 Am finding nothing about extra walls at angles in photoelectric effect, again ..... your point? What I am seeing is that the experiments on this showed unexpected results which seemed to go contrary to their percieved logic. Perhaps you will see the same -unexpected results- if you do the experiment as I suggest.
Strange Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: Am finding nothing about extra walls at angles in photoelectric effect, again ..... your point? Photons are indivisible; a photon can only be detected by a single interaction. You can say “that’s wrong” but the evidence contradicts you. 6 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: What I am seeing is that the experiments on this showed unexpected results which seemed to go contrary to their percieved logic. And this was explained by light being quantised.
Oldand Dilis Posted July 7, 2019 Author Posted July 7, 2019 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Strange said: Photons are indivisible; a photon can only be detected by a single interaction. That's the perceived wisdom but the double slit experiment shows otherwise, it shows that photons are NOT single interactions, they appear so when recorded in "real time" but behave differently when not recorded what I am saying is it can only be detected as such because we can only record in real time in the first time dimension. So we are not seeing what is happening in the other two time dimensions. If you imagine a swimming section of a triathlon you have a group of swimmers if you focus a camera only on the lead swimmer you cannot see that there is a group of swimmers behind, you either need to change the camera angle, focus or aim either way to see what is happening. Im saying you need to change your thinking, are you able to IMAGINE other time dimensions? That would be a start, if you insist I am wrong without trying to understand the concept you will be, like the flat Earthers were, stuck wasting time because "it was clearly nonsense that the world could be round". If anyone has access to a lab please try the walls at angles as I suggest not recording the photon live so the end result will show the impacts on the other walls which will be arriving in the other time dimensions. If you record to watch the photon you will not see impact marks on the other walls as you will be recording in the first time dimension. If recording live in the first time dimension the vibration (photon) will indeed appear like a single particle. Edited July 7, 2019 by Oldand Dilis Grammar correction & addition of last sentence -2
Ghideon Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 14 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: That would be a start, if you insist I am wrong without trying to understand the concept you will be, like the flat Earthers were, stuck wasting time because "it was clearly nonsense that the world could be round". At his time it is the other way around. Science has gathered evidence that the world is round and you keep stating the earth is flat. Reality does not seem to agree with the number of time dimensions you propose. 1
Strange Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said: That's the perceived wisdom Nope. That’s what the evidence tells us. 1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said: but the double slit experiment shows otherwise, it shows that photons are NOT single interactions, Nope. Each photon is only detected (ie interacts) once. 1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said: they appear so when recorded in "real time" but behave differently when not recorded That description bears no relation to the experiment as I know it. 1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said: because "it was clearly nonsense that the world could be round". Never happened. 1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said: I suggest not recording the photon live What does that even mean?
Oldand Dilis Posted July 7, 2019 Author Posted July 7, 2019 47 minutes ago, Ghideon said: At his time it is the other way around. Science has gathered evidence that the world is round and you keep stating the earth is flat. Reality does not seem to agree with the number of time dimensions you propose. Au contraire the experiment as I explain I am confident will show I am correct but by all means prove me wrong.
Strange Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Oldand Dilis said: Au contraire the experiment as I explain I am confident will show I am correct but by all means prove me wrong. The existing evidence shows you wrong
Oldand Dilis Posted July 7, 2019 Author Posted July 7, 2019 The existing evidence is focused on only one time dimension so of course it may appear conclusive. That's the whole point. It is not factoring in different time dimensions. Again I say run the variation of the experiment and prove me wrong. If you can. Giving me negative marks already shows negative bias, not open minded science. Proving a new model of the experiment is wrong would be science. Saying it is wrong before trying it is exactly the same mindset as the flat Earthers and it certainly did happen, it took a further 2000 years after the Greeks proved the world was round for most others to get their heads around the fact because they were too busy saying how ridiculous it was to take a look... Same happening here. What I mean by when recorded is when watched.
Strange Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: The existing evidence is focused on only one time dimension so of course it may appear conclusive. The evidence is just a set of observations. It doesn’t assume anything about the number of dimensions 14 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: Again I say run the variation of the experiment and prove me wrong. Every experiment has confirmed that light is quantised. No experiment has shown a photon interacting more than once. Setting up multiple single-photon detectors as you request is expensive, difficult and time consuming. No one is going to waste their time on it when our most accurate theory ever, and all previous experiments, tell us what will happen. 24 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: Saying it is wrong before trying it ... Science doesn’t proceed by just trying random experiments. It is just too inefficient. Science forums are full of people saying “just try this” for some random idea they have made up. Scientists are too busy trying to find the time and resources to test their own (science-based) ideas. 28 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: What I mean by when recorded is when watched. Why do you think that would make a difference?
Oldand Dilis Posted July 7, 2019 Author Posted July 7, 2019 19 minutes ago, Strange said: Why do you think that would make a difference? That is the reason why the double slit experiment is seen as holding the key to the central problem of quantum physics. Because watching or not makes all the difference
dimreepr Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 34 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said: That is the reason why the double slit experiment is seen as holding the key to the central problem of quantum physics. Because watching or not makes all the difference Is that a problem or an explanation?
Strange Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said: Because watching or not makes all the difference It has absolutely nothing to do with “watching” I get the impression that this is all based on a profound misunderstanding of what the experiment is and what it shows.
Phi for All Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said: The existing evidence is focused on only one time dimension so of course it may appear conclusive. That's the whole point. It is not factoring in different time dimensions. ! Moderator Note You've had three pages to persuade us with your verbal arguments about your idea, and each of your arguments have been shot down. Now you're just repeating the same arguments you've had from the beginning. If you knew the maths involved in what you're proposing, you could fairly easily try to model your idea using two extra time dimensions, and because you knew the maths, you could equally easily see why the idea results in an unworkable, unpredictable state. Much of the physics we know works would be changed if your idea had ANY merit. Everything we know works about Relativity and the observer effect wouldn't work if there were two extra time dimensions. If you come up with evidence to support yourself, please contact a staff member about re-opening this thread, but otherwise don't bring it up again. 1
Recommended Posts