Double Slit - solution?

[HexHammer]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Since you don’t do math, what kind of predictions can you make?

As you have seen first hand I've said if time dilation changes it can account for quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling, then I explained that without observer effect there can be multiple beginnings, thereby accounting for the interference pattern as the photon will interfere with itself because of the multiple beginnings

Quote

But no, superposition does not change how time dilation works. 

 

How do you know?

[Strange]

Just now, HexHammer said:

As you have seen first hand I've said if time dilation changes it can account for quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling

1. You can say "if time dilation changes" but you would need so evidence that it does before building on that hypothesis. (Hint: it doesn't)

2. You can assert that it accounts for entanglement and tunnelling, but without a model your assertion doesn't;t have much value (especially as we already have an explanation).

2 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

then I explained that without observer effect there can be multiple beginnings, thereby accounting for the interference pattern as the photon will interfere with itself because of the multiple beginnings

Again, this is just an assertion. You have not explained how the observer effect is relevant nor how it can lead to the conclusions you claim.

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

As you have seen first hand I've said if time dilation changes it can account for quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling, then I explained that without observer effect there can be multiple beginnings, thereby accounting for the interference pattern as the photon will interfere with itself because of the multiple beginnings

You’ve said a lot of things. You’ve not established that any of them are true.

Quote

How do you know?

It was one of the motivations for going from hot thermal beam cesium frequency standards to cold-atom systems like atomic fountains*. The reduction in the speed of the atoms (which are put in a superposition) reduces the frequency errors introduced by time dilation - since atoms move at different speeds - giving better accuracy and/or stability of the clocks. All consistent with relativity.

*a kind of clock I have built. It’s my job.

[HexHammer]

25 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Just an advice, the statements above is not the best way to be successful within science. It may still of course be possible, but it will be so much harder than it has to be.

Second advice; I think that trying to make progress within relativity without a good understanding of, and rigorous treatment of frames of reference actually is impossible. You could start learning about these topics by asking questions here on the forum.

Ernest Rutherford: "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Now I'm just trying to explain it from the barmaid's point of view.

Ok let me explain what I mean further. 

If the photon is like a train, I'm not saying that it will go off track, but still maintain it's route on the track, going from A to B, but if I observe from a far away place far away from the galaxy and let's say that the time will dilate greatly and it's over 10 years, then this train will be going all over the place, which will explain the weird looping route that the photon can take in Path Integral.

Edited August 3, 2019 by HexHammer

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

If the photon is like a train, I'm not saying that it will go off track, but still maintain it's route on the track, going from A to B, but if I observe from a far away place far away from the galaxy and let's say that the time will dilate greatly and it's over 10 years, then this train will be going all over the place, which will explain the weird looping route that the photon can take in Path Integral.

The paths in the integral aren’t real

[HexHammer]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

You’ve said a lot of things. You’ve not established that any of them are true.

It was one of the motivations for going from hot thermal beam cesium frequency standards to cold-atom systems like atomic fountains*. The reduction in the speed of the atoms (which are put in a superposition) reduces the frequency errors introduced by time dilation - since atoms move at different speeds - giving better accuracy and/or stability of the clocks. All consistent with relativity.

*a kind of clock I have built. It’s my job.

This exceeds my comprehension, sorry O_O I've have had quantum stuff explained though easy understandable illustrations and animations.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

The paths in the integral aren’t real

Uhmm, could you elaborate please?

[Ghideon]

27 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Ernest Rutherford: "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Now I'm just trying to explain it from the barmaid's point of view.

Ok let me explain what I mean further. 

If the photon is like a train, I'm not saying that it will go off track, but still maintain it's route on the track, going from A to B, but if I observe from a far away place far away from the galaxy and let's say that the time will dilate greatly and it's over 10 years, then this train will be going all over the place, which will explain the weird looping route that the photon can take in Path Integral.

Ernest Rutherford did not say "it should be possible for a barmaid to understand the laws of physics regardless of how invalid the explanation is". Ernest Rutherford would probably have said that laws of physics does not work the way your explanation claims.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Ghideon
grammar

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

This exceeds my comprehension, sorry O_O I've have had quantum stuff explained though easy understandable illustrations and animations.

But despite your limited knowledge you think it is appropriate to make baseless and incorrect assertions with such confidence. 

[HexHammer]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

But despite your limited knowledge you think it is appropriate to make baseless and incorrect assertions with such confidence. 

No guts, no glory.

I've had success in business life because I tried and took the beating in the process, if I was just an easily scared person I would get nowhere, sure I may fail utterly, but least I gave it an honest shot, sure you may hate me after this, but that comes with the package.

7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ernest Rutherford did not say "it should be possible for a barmaid to understand the laws of physics regardless of how invalid the explanation is". Ernest Rutherford would probably have said that laws of physics does not work the way your explanation claims.

Well, no matter who said it, the situation is still the same.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, HexHammer said:

No guts, no glory.

I've had success in business life because I tried and took the beating in the process, if I was just an easily scared person I would get nowhere, sure I may fail utterly, but least I gave it an honest shot, sure you may hate me after this, but that comes with the package.

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

 

[HexHammer]

46 minutes ago, 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. 

Now you are jumping to conclusions, please speak for yourself, I don't just make up crap in my business life.

[Strange]

Just now, HexHammer said:

Now you are jumping to conclusions, please speak for yourself, I don't just make up crap in my business life.

Because you made the comparison, I was just assuming you did the same there as you are doing here.

[HexHammer]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

Because you made the comparison, I was just assuming you did the same there as you are doing here.

 Be very careful for karma, you are bringing lots of bad karma upon yourself.

[Ghideon]

On 8/2/2019 at 5:21 AM, HexHammer said:

multiple beginnings are allowed.

What are multiple beginnings? 

[HexHammer]

7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What are multiple beginnings? 

With observer effect a beginning can only happen once, but without observer effect there can be multiple, why you see in super position that the photon can go through either slits, both, and none at the same time! 

[Ghideon]

1 minute ago, HexHammer said:

With observer effect a beginning can only happen once, but without observer effect there can be multiple, why you see in super position that the photon can go through either slits, both, and none at the same time! 

That does not explain what multiple beginnings are? What is it that begins? When does it begin? How far apart in time are these beginnings? Discussing this could be interesting but more details are required. 

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

With observer effect a beginning can only happen once

Why?

8 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

without observer effect there can be multiple

Why?

And what does "multiple beginnings" mean?

 

[HexHammer]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

That does not explain what multiple beginnings are? What is it that begins? When does it begin? How far apart in time are these beginnings? Discussing this could be interesting but more details are required. 

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Why?

And what does "multiple beginnings" mean?

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.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

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.

In which case:

2 hours ago, HexHammer said:

With observer effect a beginning can only happen once

Why?

2 hours ago, HexHammer said:

without observer effect there can be multiple

Why?

 

Maybe you should explain what you mean by "observer effect" because it seems you are using it in a non-standard way.

[HexHammer]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

In which case:

Why?

Why?

Maybe you should explain what you mean by "observer effect" because it seems you are using it in a non-standard way.

I was meant to give a much longer answer, but I'm strained. I will give a fulfilling answer much later today. Sorry for the inconvenience. 

[HexHammer]

22 hours ago, Strange said:

In which case:

Why?

Why?

 

Maybe you should explain what you mean by "observer effect" because it seems you are using it in a non-standard way.

The first part is very simple. 
- with observer effect the photon will go through either slit and only create a normal pattern at the end, nothing out of the ordinary

- without observer effect, the photon will create an interference pattern,  as if the photon has interfered with itself, which objectively makes no sense, how 1 single photon can do that, just because no one is observing. On top of that it's just a mechanical camera observing.

https://youtu.be/A9tKncAdlHQ?t=461

Second part
The photon is already at max speed = C
Adding rotation and movement of earth, sol, galaxy etc etc, then the photon will begin to glitch as C can't be exceeded, creating the 'superposition' where multiple beginnings are created, where the photon can go through either slit, both and none at the same time.

Third part
If the photon when i superposition can go through none of the slits, that means that trillion of years have passed and the world have been destroyed by the sun, thereby sorta disproving swansont's claim that the looping path integral isn't real. But since I can't make a convincing proof of it, then this will most likely be dismissed.

[Strange]

Just now, HexHammer said:

- with observer effect the photon will go through either slit and only create a normal pattern at the end, nothing out of the ordinary

Why?

1 minute ago, HexHammer said:

- without observer effect, the photon will create an interference pattern,  as if the photon has interfered with itself, which objectively makes no sense, how 1 single photon can do that, just because no one is observing. On top of that it's just a mechanical camera observing.

Why?

1 minute ago, HexHammer said:

The photon is already at max speed = C
Adding rotation and movement of earth, sol, galaxy etc etc, then the photon will begin to glitch as C can't be exceeded, creating the 'superposition' where multiple beginnings are created, where the photon can go through either slit, both and none at the same time.

The speed of light is invariant, so it isn't affected by the movement of the Earth, the Sun or the galaxy.

What does it mean for a photon to "glitch"? What evidence do you have that photons can "glitch"?

 

It seems like you have looked at the results predicted by quantum theory and then, rather than understand them, made up your own story to match. I'm not sure what the point is. Wouldn't it be better to expend the effort to understand why these things really happen?

[HexHammer]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why?

Why?

The speed of light is invariant, so it isn't affected by the movement of the Earth, the Sun or the galaxy.

What does it mean for a photon to "glitch"? What evidence do you have that photons can "glitch"?

 

It seems like you have looked at the results predicted by quantum theory and then, rather than understand them, made up your own story to match. I'm not sure what the point is. Wouldn't it be better to expend the effort to understand why these things really happen?

Now you are questioning very simple "Double Slit Experiment" maybe you should read that and come back and discuss.

Well you can see it's affected since it goes into superposition, maybe not the rotation, but are affected by black holes, neutron stars and magnetars.

[Ghideon]

 

22 hours ago, 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.

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.

 

 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Now you are questioning very simple "Double Slit Experiment" maybe you should read that and come back and discuss.

Not at all. We know what the double sit experiment does and why.

I am trying to understand your claimed explanation.

You have repeatedly asserted that the "observer effect" somehow causes the photon to either go through one or both slits. You have not explained WHY this is the case.

And I don't really know what you mean by the observer effect. Perhaps you could clarify that as well.

 

I guess you saying that when we observe which slit the photon the photon goes through it changes the behaviour. But we know that (from both theory and experiment). You are not explaining why it happens (unlike current theory, which does).

 

Let's take the simplest case: you place a detector at one of the slits. If that detects a photon then the photon no longer exists and so, obviously, there will be no interference pattern formed - you have effectively reduced it to a "single slit" experiment. That could be described as an example of the observer effect in action.

BUT, the important point is, we can measure which slit the photon goes through without observing the photon (and therefore not destroying it). And that still destroys the interference pattern. How does your claim of the "observer effect" work in that case?