Double Slit - solution?

[Mordred]

What makes you believe he didn't 

[HexHammer]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What makes you believe he didn't 

Quote

 

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. 

On a 2nd read it seems he doesn't understand my point, he jumps to conclusions and doesn't seem to wield his moderator badge well, surely doesn't do his own lawsuits. Never claimed infallibility, but I never question swansont's skills, but merely that there has been some measurement differences in the old quantum experiments, like 1 experiments stated that photons are particles, other experiment stated it was waves, so each experiment can show different results.
Same with people claiming super strings doesn't exist, then can't explain the background noise or whatever it's called. I'm the obnoxious kind of person that doesn't take things as face value, i need things confirmed and reconfirmed. Sorry.

[Mordred]

That is fine in an of itself, but maybe a better way of expressing this would have been better.

So let's get to the last comment. Yes there was contention for years on the nature of particles. The wave particle duality met with strong resistance in both camps for years . Some stressed particles were corpuscular and didn't like the wave explanations and vise versa.

Eventually research showed that particles display both charactistics as U explained in an earlier post.

 I don't know if you will read this but there is an excellent paper on the topic.

It is an Arxiv article

"There are no particles, there are only fields" 

In essence it explains how wave particle duality works with the double slit experiment.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616&ved=2ahUKEwj7o_CNhPDjAhXUo54KHQEwBGIQFjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw27uWB6T-rNUVN6PSSrQiFO

On phone it is an Arxiv article.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Mordred

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Mordred said:

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.

I concur with this. When I make a mistake, I want it corrected. I also like it when I learn something new in the process, be it a concept or a better way of expressing myself. (And there are others who post here who share this attitude). 

8 hours ago, HexHammer said:

 I never question swansont's skills

Just my qualifications.  

Quote

that there has been some measurement differences in the old quantum experiments, like 1 experiments stated that photons are particles, other experiment stated it was waves, so each experiment can show different results.

Yes. That where the whole wave-particle duality came from, as Mordred has explained. 

[HexHammer]

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

Just my qualifications.  

Yes. That where the whole wave-particle duality came from, as Mordred has explained. 

No, nor your qualifications, it's the complexity of quantum mechanics, it seems you are very good at what you do, and you know the laws of quantum mechanics very well, but you are not the "pioneer" that wonders why the photon can go through none of the slits in superposition, and I must disagree with you where you claim that the looping paths isn't real in Path Integral, which I think it is since it may be the lead/hint to why the photon can go through none of the slits in superposition.

Rigid thinking doesn't lead to pioneering.

[Mordred]

The numerous path integrals is the probability function under QM. The path chosen follows the path of least action. Only one path is taken out of all the possible paths.

It really boils down to the calculus if variations at its rudiments.

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

No, nor your qualifications,

You literally did.

Quote

I must ask for a better qualified to judge my work

 

23 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

it's the complexity of quantum mechanics, it seems you are very good at what you do, and you know the laws of quantum mechanics very well, but you are not the "pioneer" that wonders why the photon can go through none of the slits in superposition,

That I am not doing it now does not mean I have not done so before. But I have studied QM for a number of years, and have developed an understanding.

Being confused about QM does not make you a pioneer. 

23 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

and I must disagree with you where you claim that the looping paths isn't real in Path Integral, which I think it is since it may be the lead/hint to why the photon can go through none of the slits in superposition.

Most paths interfere with each other and cancel. As Mordred says, you are left with the one that follows the path of least action.

It's a calculational tool, not a literal occurrence, at least in how mainstream physics uses it.

 

23 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Rigid thinking doesn't lead to pioneering.

A lot of pioneers died because they didn't find the right path and got lost. You have yet to establish that you are right. Only (at best) that you are on a different path. We tend not to name things after people who ended up getting nowhere in a new way.

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

I must disagree with you where you claim that the looping paths isn't real in Path Integral, which I think it is since it may be the lead/hint to why the photon can go through none of the slits in superposition.

I am pretty sure that even Feynman did not think they had any physical reality; it was just a calculating tool.

I would assume that the reason it works (and why a photon can (appear) to go through both slits, and why the measurement of a photon that didn't go through the slits, and why erasing the information later affects the the results, and why entanglement appears to communicate, and ...) is because quantum effects are non-local. So, to calculate what happens, you need to consider all possible effects, however remote. The path integral is a way of approximating that.

[HexHammer]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

You literally did.

 

That I am not doing it now does not mean I have not done so before. But I have studied QM for a number of years, and have developed an understanding.

Being confused about QM does not make you a pioneer. 

Most paths interfere with each other and cancel. As Mordred says, you are left with the one that follows the path of least action.

It's a calculational tool, not a literal occurrence, at least in how mainstream physics uses it.

 

A lot of pioneers died because they didn't find the right path and got lost. You have yet to establish that you are right. Only (at best) that you are on a different path. We tend not to name things after people who ended up getting nowhere in a new way.

If multiple sources speak of looping path integral, then maybe there's something about it that you don't see or want to see.
What you do, takes high skill. 

But just because you have high skills in 1 area of quantum, doesn't mean you have equally high skills in all areas of quantum mechanics.

I don't doubt you have high skills in your field of expertise.

I am a pioneer, it's very obvious since you doesn't seem to take black holes into your equation. But I do. 

Better try and fail, than not try at all.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

I am pretty sure that even Feynman did not think they had any physical reality; it was just a calculating tool.

I would assume that the reason it works (and why a photon can (appear) to go through both slits, and why the measurement of a photon that didn't go through the slits, and why erasing the information later affects the the results, and why entanglement appears to communicate, and ...) is because quantum effects are non-local. So, to calculate what happens, you need to consider all possible effects, however remote. The path integral is a way of approximating that.

Yesyes, but then oh wise one! Please explain quantum tunneling?

[Ghideon]

On 8/6/2019 at 12:22 AM, HexHammer said:

time can go both ways

I'm still waiting for detailed explanation what you exactly mean.

 

14 hours ago, HexHammer said:

I'm the obnoxious kind of person that doesn't take things as face value, i need things confirmed and reconfirmed. Sorry.

And I'm the obnoxious kind that will repeat questions and continue digging until answers are provided (or threads are closed). Sorry.
Even if I do not agree about some (or most) aspects I want to know exactly how you think your idea works. I really want to understand your point of view. I prefer not to take part in the discussion only to repeat what I know from studies or mainstream sources without putting it into the context where it applies in this specific topic. 

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Please explain quantum tunneling?

The position of a particle is defined by a wave-function (effectively, the probability of detecting at any location). If there is a barrier, then there can be a finite probability that the particle will be detected on the "wrong" side of the barrier. 

14 hours ago, HexHammer said:

I'm the obnoxious kind of person that doesn't take things as face value, i need things confirmed and reconfirmed.

Good. That is the way science works. 

Or, it should be good. But you seem to reject the repeated confirmations of science and prefer to make up your own explanations which lack both a model and evidence to confirm them.

[HexHammer]

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I'm still waiting for detailed explanation what you exactly mean.

And I'm the obnoxious kind that will repeat questions and continue digging until answers are provided (or threads are closed). Sorry.
Even if I do not agree about some (or most) aspects I want to know exactly how you think your idea works. I really want to understand your point of view. I prefer not to take part in the discussion only to repeat what I know from studies or mainstream sources without putting it into the context where it applies in this specific topic. 

I'm sure least black holes can manipulate time, by pushing and pulling fabric of space to make time go both ways. Maybe this also applies for neutron stars and magnetars, who knows?

If I have to confess to the really mad thoughts then maybe black holes can partially act like a conscious observer since it can store information and spins so fast that it can act like a computer.

Happy now?

 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

The position of a particle is defined by a wave-function (effectively, the probability of detecting at any location). If there is a barrier, then there can be a finite probability that the particle will be detected on the "wrong" side of the barrier. 

Good. That is the way science works. 

Or, it should be good. But you seem to reject the repeated confirmations of science and prefer to make up your own explanations which lack both a model and evidence to confirm them.

Your explanation of quantum tunneling doesn't explain anything about what actually is going on, only a vague surficial description, but thanks anyways.

I prefer often to make my own deeper explanations because the current are insufficient, sure it rubs you guys the wrong way to have some stirr.

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

I'm sure least black holes can manipulate time, by pushing and pulling fabric of space to make time go both ways.

Do you have anything (math, evidence, citation) to support this? If not, why are you so certain of it?

23 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Your explanation of quantum tunneling doesn't explain anything about what actually is going on, only a vague surficial description, but thanks anyways.

I left the math out.

How much detail would you need?

23 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

I prefer often to make my own deeper explanations because the current are insufficient

They are not "deeper". They are shallow. Because they have no explanatory power: you cannot predict anything from them, you are just coming up with your own explanations for what current (deeper) theory tells us. Your own explanations inevitably make more sense to you because they are pitched at exactly the right level: you came up with them based on what you know and what you can understand. So they seem just right. To anyone who knows even a little of what science tells us, your "explanations" are just post-hoc stories.

[HexHammer]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Do you have anything (math, evidence, citation) to support this? If not, why are you so certain of it?

 I left the math out. 

How much detail would you need?

They are not "deeper". They are shallow. Because they have no explanatory power: you cannot predict anything from them, you are just coming up with your own explanations for what current (deeper) theory tells us. Your own explanations inevitably make more sense to you because they are pitched at exactly the right level: you came up with them based on what you know and what you can understand. So they seem just right. To anyone who knows even a little of what science tells us, your "explanations" are just post-hoc stories.

If a BH can store information, then maybe there can in certain cases be entanglement then what is in the future can root back the past, so both ends can be manipulated. I have nothing solid, only theories.

Yes maybe my theories are just post-hoc stories, but if you are so wise then solve the double slit experiment yourselves, since it still stands unsolved.

[Strange]

50 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

If a BH can store information, then maybe there can in certain cases be entanglement then what is in the future can root back the past, so both ends can be manipulated. I have nothing solid, only theories.

There are theories out there that relate black holes to entanglement:

"ER=EPR is a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge)^[1][2] and may be a basis for unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory of everything.^[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

However, as far as I know, nothing in this suggest that "what is in the future can root back the past". That would appear to violate causality, which does seem to be pretty fundamental to the nature of the universe.

And you don't have "theories". A theory is a model (in physics, a mathematical model) that has been extensively tested and confirmed.

54 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

but if you are so wise then solve the double slit experiment yourselves, since it still stands unsolved.

What is there to solve?

The behaviour was predicted by quantum theory; when technology made it possible to perform the experiment, it (rather boringly) exactly fitted the explanation provided by quantum theory.

[Mordred]

Funny how I posted you a paper showing the solution to the two slit experiment.

Obviously you didn't bother  reading it. I can easily post the math behind quantum tunneling I can quaranteed it won't be understood  by any that  doesn't have extremely  strong math skills.

 The descriptive given by Strange is fairly accurate but there is no easy way to explain how it occurs. First you have to give up all belief that particles  are bullet like objects. As the solutions require wavefunctions.

[HexHammer]

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are theories out there that relate black holes to entanglement:

"ER=EPR is a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge)^[1][2] and may be a basis for unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory of everything.^[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

However, as far as I know, nothing in this suggest that "what is in the future can root back the past". That would appear to violate causality, which does seem to be pretty fundamental to the nature of the universe.

 And you don't have "theories". A theory is a model (in physics, a mathematical model) that has been extensively tested and confirmed.

What is there to solve?

The behaviour was predicted by quantum theory; when technology made it possible to perform the experiment, it (rather boringly) exactly fitted the explanation provided by quantum theory.

Yes but nor does any model fully explain how a galaxy are hold together, where the "black matter" are theorized. Thanks for explanation.

Quote

noun. 1A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

 

31 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Funny how I posted you a paper showing the solution to the two slit experiment.

Obviously you didn't bother  reading it. I can easily post the math behind quantum tunneling I can quaranteed it won't be understood  by any that  doesn't have extremely  strong math skills.

 The descriptive given by Strange is fairly accurate but there is no easy way to explain how it occurs. First you have to give up all belief that particles  are bullet like objects. As the solutions require wavefunctions.

SORRY!!!!! ...the features on this site are horrible, I am used to sites having color coding for which posts I have watched  @_@ too much going on, too confuzzled, but thanks!!! 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, HexHammer said:

I am a pioneer, it's very obvious since you doesn't seem to take black holes into your equation. But I do. 

You don’t have any equations. You don’t do math, remember?

 

 

[HexHammer]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

You don’t have any equations. You don’t do math, remember?

Making equations isn't in itself pioneering, discovering new geographical areas are pioneering, no math involved necessarily, so your definition is off.

39 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Funny how I posted you a paper showing the solution to the two slit experiment.

Obviously you didn't bother  reading it. I can easily post the math behind quantum tunneling I can quaranteed it won't be understood  by any that  doesn't have extremely  strong math skills.

 The descriptive given by Strange is fairly accurate but there is no easy way to explain how it occurs. First you have to give up all belief that particles  are bullet like objects. As the solutions require wavefunctions.

Uhmm is this supposed to be the solution? ..if so it's utterly bad at best, it's vague and doesn't fully explain the actual mechanics https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Yes but nor does any model fully explain how a galaxy are hold together, where the "black matter" are theorized. Thanks for explanation.

This is explained by Newtonian gravity. Doesn’t even need GR, as far as I know. 

16 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Making equations isn't in itself pioneering,

It is if they provide a radical new way of understanding the world. After all, your “theories” are just your repacking of the (mathematical) results of quantum theory. 

You wouldn’t have come up with them if quantum theory hadn’t already told us how the world works. 

So you are just taking the results of the pioneers and making up stories that you find satisfying. That is not science. 

[HexHammer]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is explained by Newtonian gravity. Doesn’t even need GR, as far as I know. 

It is if they provide a radical new way of understanding the world. After all, your “theories” are just your repacking of the (mathematical) results of quantum theory. 

You wouldn’t have come up with them if quantum theory hadn’t already told us how the world works. 

So you are just taking the results of the pioneers and making up stories that you find satisfying. That is not science. 

No, Newton didn't explain it at all. Dark matter is still unexplained.

No. 

Einstein wouldn't come up with anything if he was born in the rainforest and had no access to school, Newton's writings etc etc. Every step are always build upon something else, only super genius pushes things forward with great inventions. So you makes no sense. Failing at philosophy. You sure sound like you don't do your own lawsuits.

I make assumptions and theories based on what I've learned along the way. It's not that I'm forcing you to be here and endure the torture of my silly theories.

[Mordred]

46 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

 

Uhmm is this supposed to be the solution? ..if so it's utterly bad at best, it's vague and doesn't fully explain the actual mechanics https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

It's only vaque if you understand the math and a couple principles of wave forms. If two waves intersect they interfere with one another if they have identical wavelengths they constructively interfere resulting in a wave amplitude the sum of both waves. If the waves are not identical you get destructive interference. Now forget thinking of particles as little bullets. Completely think of particles as a field excitation these excitations can interfere with each other. Also the slit itself can induce interference.

If the interference is constructive sufficient for a quanta of energy)momentum you literally  create a photon. (Particles are easily created and destroyed the greater the energy density the greater the particle number density) 

Now a non local wave is one that you cannot localize ie a sinusoidal wave have no determinable start and end point. However a localized excitation looks much like a spike with a few transition jitters. It has a well definable beginning and end to that wave pattern. This is the particle like portion. Both are waveforms but of two different patterns. That is the nature of wave particle duality from the Field point of view.

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

No, Newton didn't explain it at all. Dark matter is still unexplained.

We only know about dark matter because of Newton's law of gravity.

4 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

Einstein wouldn't come up with anything if he was born in the rainforest and had no access to school, Newton's writings etc etc. Every step are always build upon something else, only super genius pushes things forward with great inventions. So you makes no sense.

That would be a fair comment if you were coming up with something new, but you aren't. All you are doing is "explaining" (to yourself) things that have been predicted, described, explained already by quantum theory.

Yes, Einstein built on the work of others ("standing on the shoulders of giants" as Newton put it) but he advanced on that work and produced new theories that made new predictions. You are not doing that.

All you are doing is going from "quantum theory tells us (in mathematical detail) how the result of the double slit changes depending on the measurement" to "the result of the double slit changes depending on what we observe". Not exactly a breakthrough, is it.

7 minutes ago, HexHammer said:

I make assumptions and theories based on what I've learned along the way.

You are just "rephrasing" the popular science explanations you have picked up. Not doing any new science.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

HexHammer, not doing math is not a good enough excuse for ignoring criticism. It is also beyond me how you think you can be a pioneer in anything without having a solid understanding of the foundations of the area you claim to be a pioneer in. Since this thread appears to be going nowhere fast, I am closing it.