Double Slit - solution?

[HexHammer]

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

What is it that begins? The same cat* put in the same box multiple times? Multiple cats put in the same box at the same time? The same cat affected by multiple events at different times? Other? Your description lacks detail.

*) I have some basic knowledge of Schrödinger and the cat but not about multiple beginnings.

Say with no observer when in superposition, the photon is shot through the left slit at 3:00 pm, then when in superposition time can go both ways, then it suddenly can be at 2:00 pm, and the photon hasn't been shot. Then at another beginning then it's 3:30 and the photon goes through the left slit.

If you don't understand this, then ask yourselves.

WHY CAN THE PHOTON GO THROUGH EITHER LEFT OR RIGHT, BOTH OR THROUGH NONE ...AT THE SAME TIME?!?!?! ...IT'S VERY VERY SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

then when in superposition time can go both ways, then it suddenly can be at 2:00 pm

What evidence do you have for this?

6 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

IT'S VERY VERY SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, you should have written in block capitals from the beginning. It would all have been so obvious. 

[Ghideon]

17 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Say with no observer when in superposition, the photon is shot through the left slit at 3:00 pm, then when in superposition time can go both ways, then it suddenly can be at 2:00 pm, and the photon hasn't been shot. Then at another beginning then it's 3:30 and the photon goes through the left slit.

Using your examples: At 3:30 there could be an observer in place for a second run of the experiment. Or the left slit could be blocked. Whose time can go both ways? The observer's time? the slit's time? What happens when the experiment is interfered at some of these "beginnings"? What mechanism guarantees that these "beginnings" progress and later end in such a way that a measurement or a pattern is possible? 

 

24 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

WHY CAN THE PHOTON GO THROUGH EITHER LEFT OR RIGHT, BOTH OR THROUGH NONE ...AT THE SAME TIME?!?!?! ...IT'S VERY VERY SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you need a bigger font. I still don't get the idea and what evidence you try to provide.

 

[HexHammer]

Obvious trolls.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

What evidence do you have for this?

 

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Using your examples: At 3:30 there could be an observer in place for a second run of the experiment. Or the left slit could be blocked. Whose time can go both ways? The observer's time? the slit's time? What happens when the experiment is interfered at some of these "beginnings"? What mechanism guarantees that these "beginnings" progress and later end in such a way that a measurement or a pattern is possible? 

I think you need a bigger font. I still don't get the idea and what evidence you try to provide.

Maybe you should describe the double slit experiment for me, then I can see where we go wrong.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, HexHammer said:

Obvious trolls.

I am not going to watch an hour long video because you believe there is something in there that supports what you claim.

Please quote what is relevant from that video, or provide a proper source, to support your claim that "when in superposition time can go both ways"

[HexHammer]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I am not going to watch an hour long video because you believe there is something in there that supports what you claim.

Please quote what is relevant from that video, or provide a proper source, to support your claim that "when in superposition time can go both ways"

The answer is illustrated just at the moment you start the vid, just watch ca 15 sec and it has even narration!

Time travel has for ca half a century been in the quantum theory, now you suddenly question it? Obvious troll!

Edited August 6, 2019 by HexHammer

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

The answer is illustrated just at the moment you start the vid, just watch ca 15 sec and it has even narration!

"Why don't we ever see events unfold in reverse order"

This does not support your claim that "when in superposition time can go both ways"

Quote

Time travel has for ca half a century been in the quantum theory, now you suddenly question it? 

Then it should be easy for you to provide a reference to support this.

[swansont]

On 8/4/2019 at 5:08 PM, HexHammer said:

 

Once upon a time there as a Schrodinger KItty, it was put in a box, and it lived to tell the tale when it was taken out again after 1 h, once upon a time there was a Schrodinger Kitty it died a violent death ..at the same time it was alive, it was called superposition.

If the kitty can be dead and alive at the same time, that means there must have been multiple beginnings, what they in novels calls timelines, but that's wrong since super position is in the same timeline.

So if the same photon can be fired multiple times at the same time, it can thereby interfere with itself and create the interference pattern.

"Multiple beginnings" is your own particular view on the matter, and one which you would need to provide evidence for. How does one test this conjecture?

11 hours ago, HexHammer said:

 

WHY CAN THE PHOTON GO THROUGH EITHER LEFT OR RIGHT, BOTH OR THROUGH NONE ...AT THE SAME TIME?!?!?! ...IT'S VERY VERY SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because it's a wave.

How did we get onto the double-slit experiment? I thought you were going to explain how time dilation required the observer effect.

[HexHammer]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

"Multiple beginnings" is your own particular view on the matter, and one which you would need to provide evidence for. How does one test this conjecture?

Because it's a wave.

How did we get onto the double-slit experiment? I thought you were going to explain how time dilation required the observer effect.

If it's truly just because the photon is a wave, then why are there a difference in when the camera is on, and off? When on it just makes 2 lines, when off it make an interference pattern. I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, I have only theories.
https://youtu.be/A9tKncAdlHQ?t=456

3 hours ago, Strange said:

"Why don't we ever see events unfold in reverse order"

This does not support your claim that "when in superposition time can go both ways"

Then it should be easy for you to provide a reference to support this.

"according to the laws of physics, this can happen!" patience my padawan, just watch a few more sec.

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

"according to the laws of physics, this can happen!" patience my padawan, just watch a few more sec.

And yet it doesn't happen. I assume that is the point of the video, but I really can't be bothered to waste time on it.

So you have nothing to support your claim that "when in superposition time can go both ways" or that "the photon is shot through the left slit at 3:00 pm, then when in superposition time can go both ways, then it suddenly can be at 2:00 pm." Basically, this never happens. You are just making stuff up.

43 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, I have only theories.

In other words, you don't have a theory. (A theory being something that has been repeatedly confirmed ["beyond reasonable doubt"] by evidence.)

You have some vague ideas, not based on science.

[HexHammer]

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

And yet it doesn't happen. I assume that is the point of the video, but I really can't be bothered to waste time on it.

So you have nothing to support your claim that "when in superposition time can go both ways" or that "the photon is shot through the left slit at 3:00 pm, then when in superposition time can go both ways, then it suddenly can be at 2:00 pm." Basically, this never happens. You are just making stuff up.

In other words, you don't have a theory. (A theory being something that has been repeatedly confirmed ["beyond reasonable doubt"] by evidence.)

You have some vague ideas, not based on science.

Einstein's 2 clocks experiment where the 1 would be normal, other would go a bit slower, that's may qualify as going backwards due to dilation, so you don't win this one sorry! 

When Darwin first proposed his theory, it wasn't proved by mainstream science, but rideculed, so you are wrong again.

[Ghideon]

15 hours ago, HexHammer said:

 the photon is shot through the left slit at 3:00 pm, then when in superposition time can go both ways, then it suddenly can be at 2:00 pm, and the photon hasn't been shot.

 

16 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Einstein's 2 clocks experiment where the 1 would be normal, other would go a bit slower, that's may qualify as going backwards due to dilation

I think the two situations described above are very different. Are you suggesting they are the same?

[HexHammer]

17 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I think the two situations described above are very different. Are you suggesting they are the same?

I dunno, I'm not a scientist, only a "sofa professor" what do I know?

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by HexHammer

[swansont]

1 hour ago, HexHammer said:

If it's truly just because the photon is a wave, then why are there a difference in when the camera is on, and off?

Light is a particle and a wave. This is a different behavior - the particle aspect of photons.

 

42 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Einstein's 2 clocks experiment where the 1 would be normal, other would go a bit slower, that's may qualify as going backwards due to dilation, so you don't win this one sorry! 

No, it doesn't go backwards in any scenario. It goes forward, just at a different rate.

42 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

When Darwin first proposed his theory, it wasn't proved by mainstream science, but rideculed, so you are wrong again.

Darwin had amassed lots of evidence by the time he published, and he had a framework to make predictions.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, HexHammer said:

Obvious troll!

!

Moderator Note

Stop this. We attack ideas here, not people. 

If you seriously think these professionals waste their science discussion time trolling, you're never going to learn from them. I highly recommend you dismount from that overly tall horse.

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, HexHammer said:

Einstein's 2 clocks experiment where the 1 would be normal, other would go a bit slower, that's may qualify as going backwards due to dilation

1. It is not going backwards it is just (seen as) going forwards slower.

2. It has nothing to do with quantum theory, superposition or the double slit experiment.

 

[HexHammer]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Light is a particle and a wave. This is a different behavior - the particle aspect of photons.

That doesn't explain the difference between photon going through either slit with observer effect, and without, so you fail at your own game.

Quote

No, it doesn't go backwards in any scenario. It goes forward, just at a different rate.

 

That's with observer effect, and you still can't explain why the photon can act so differently in superposition.

Quote

Darwin had amassed lots of evidence by the time he published, and he had a framework to make predictions.

Oh yes, like you "debunked" by claim by greater dilation without observer effect with your homebrew evidence that are unconfirmed from independent sources, so it still stands unverified as I understand it?

I must ask for a better qualified to judge my work, I'm sorry especially when you just make the poor statement of the photon being particles that's why it makes the interference pattern, that explains exactly nothing, it's something I would expect from a 14 y old kid.

 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Stop this. We attack ideas here, not people. 

If you seriously think these professionals waste their science discussion time trolling, you're never going to learn from them. I highly recommend you dismount from that overly tall horse.

 

 Then please reprimand Strange for continuously bashing and verbally abusing me with unprofound accusations.

On 8/3/2019 at 10:27 PM, Strange said:

Making up crap as you go might work in business (I doubt it is an optimal strategy) but is doomed to fail in science. 

 

 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

That's with observer effect, and you still can't explain why the photon can act so differently in superposition.

Time dilation has nothing to do with the observer effect, nor with superposition. 

As you are just throwing more random stuff into the discussion, can we assume you have nothing to support your claims?

Still waiting for you to explain why observing the photon has the effect you claim. 

And then how observing another photon that doesn’t go through the slits changes the behaviour of the one that does. 

And then how erasing this observation afterwards changes whether interference is observed or not. 

Over to you

After all, if quantum theory hadn’t already told us the results of the double slit experiment, you would not have been able to predict it from “photons observer effect!”

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, HexHammer said:

Then please reprimand Strange for continuously bashing and verbally abusing me with unprofound accusations.

!

Moderator Note

Modnotes aren't up for discussion, they're a warning that you're breaking the rules.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please note that "crap" refers to YOUR IDEA, not you. Stop taking this personally, this is supposed to be science.

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, HexHammer said:

That doesn't explain the difference between photon going through either slit with observer effect, and without, so you fail at your own game.

Because it's not the observer effect.

3 hours ago, HexHammer said:

That's with observer effect, and you still can't explain why the photon can act so differently in superposition.

It's not the observer effect, and yes, you can, but it requires math.

3 hours ago, HexHammer said:

Oh yes, like you "debunked" by claim by greater dilation without observer effect with your homebrew evidence that are unconfirmed from independent sources, so it still stands unverified as I understand it?

Um, what?

(You aren't as telepathic as you think. I don't know what you're referring to, just because you do)

3 hours ago, HexHammer said:

I must ask for a better qualified to judge my work,

You need to do better work.

3 hours ago, HexHammer said:

I'm sorry especially when you just make the poor statement of the photon being particles that's why it makes the interference pattern, that explains exactly nothing, it's something I would expect from a 14 y old kid.

That's not what I said, and you should ask for your money back while you're at it.

 

[Mordred]

Better qualified well Swanson does have a PH.D I say he's qualified enough. 

[HexHammer]

16 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Better qualified well Swanson does have a PH.D I say he's qualified enough. 

I know lots of PhD not exactly infalible people.

[Mordred]

True but I can tell you Swansont has been accurately answering your posts. Wave particle duality simply means that all particles display both wavelike and pointlike characteristics. Pointlike is described by the particles Compton or DeBroglie wavelength. All particles are field excitations that are described by a wavefunction.  Not all wavefunction are probabilistic there are also physical wavefunctions.

 Particles are not little bullets or balls. They are field excitations with no corpuscular (material structure) component's. 

I also have a degree in particle physics so can confirm the accuracy in Swansonts posts. Neither one of us has any issue correcting each other should we make a mistake. We actually appreciate such corrections should mistakes arise.

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

I know lots of PhD not exactly infalible people.

!

Moderator Note

Nobody claimed infallibility. Swansont works with the atomic clocks that help regulate the GPS system. You're wasting this chance to discuss your idea with a professional atomic physicist by harping that his grasp of the science isn't perfect? 

Seriously, it's one thing to build an idea based on limited knowledge, but rejecting these offers to remove some ignorance by disrespecting the knowledge of others is rude and uncivil. You're the one acting like you're infallible when experts are showing you, pointing out EXACTLY where your knowledge let's you down and you just claim they're wrong. You're making an extraordinary claim, and you need to support it extraordinarily. 

 

[HexHammer]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Nobody claimed infallibility. Swansont works with the atomic clocks that help regulate the GPS system. You're wasting this chance to discuss your idea with a professional atomic physicist by harping that his grasp of the science isn't perfect? 

Seriously, it's one thing to build an idea based on limited knowledge, but rejecting these offers to remove some ignorance by disrespecting the knowledge of others is rude and uncivil. You're the one acting like you're infallible when experts are showing you, pointing out EXACTLY where your knowledge let's you down and you just claim they're wrong. You're making an extraordinary claim, and you need to support it extraordinarily. 

 

..............maybe it would be a good idea to read the full context?