moth Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, scifimath said: what? It doesn't cause anything ..it's the end of the line. A quantum wave or object is slamming into a spacetime object. Which is it? a quantum wave, or object Edited August 27, 2019 by moth punctuation
scifimath Posted August 27, 2019 Author Posted August 27, 2019 It depends if a detector was placed in the path or not.
Mordred Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 4 minutes ago, scifimath said: dots on a screen are not special The patterns they generate is.
moth Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 Just now, scifimath said: It depends if a detector was placed in the path or not. how do you make any observation without detection?
scifimath Posted August 27, 2019 Author Posted August 27, 2019 I'm sorry, do you think you just got me on something?
Mordred Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) No we all recognize your too stubborn to listen to any real physics explanation. Do us all a favor try googling our replies in case you don't believe us. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Edited August 27, 2019 by Mordred 1
scifimath Posted August 27, 2019 Author Posted August 27, 2019 If the object is small enough to be in the unobserved club. It's going to be a wave. Use the wave function and shoot at a detector. or are you asking how do we observe the unobserved?
uncool Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, scifimath said: If the object is small enough to be in the unobserved club. It's going to be a wave. Then why do photons act like particles with respect to the photoelectric effect (among other things)? Wave/particle duality deals (or originally dealt) with two experiments. One in which photons consistently act like waves, one in which they consistently act like particles. Edited August 27, 2019 by uncool
moth Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, scifimath said: If the object is small enough to be in the unobserved club. It's going to be a wave. Use the wave function and shoot at a detector. or are you asking how do we observe the unobserved? will you admit detection is a kind of observation? Edited August 27, 2019 by moth
Mordred Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 lets try a thought experiment that has little to do with the two slit experiment. You have an older Cathode ray TV that TV fires a stream of electrons that that are deflected by the EM field to each pixel at different wavelengths these wavelengths give you your color images. The screen itself intercepts these EM waves and gives you an image. Does the screen not interfere with the electron stream ? If not then why do you not get electrocuted ? and why do you see the image which requires photons?
scifimath Posted August 27, 2019 Author Posted August 27, 2019 20 minutes ago, uncool said: Then why do photons act like particles with respect to the photoelectric effect (among other things)? Wave/particle duality deals (or originally dealt) with two experiments. One in which photons consistently act like waves, one in which they consistently act like particles. Observed light acts like a photon. I want the experiments to consistently act like one or the other, so what's the problem? 19 minutes ago, moth said: will you admit detection is a kind of observation? Sure, a person placing a detector is the ritual required to request a physical particle. 13 minutes ago, Mordred said: lets try a thought experiment that has little to do with the two slit experiment. You have an older Cathode ray TV that TV fires a stream of electrons that that are deflected by the EM field to each pixel at different wavelengths these wavelengths give you your color images. The screen itself intercepts these EM waves and gives you an image. Does the screen not interfere with the electron stream ? If not then why do you not get electrocuted ? and why do you see the image which requires photons? The physical form of the electrons have the data/energy of the wavelengths. I think you want me to be electrocuted.
Mordred Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) Can you not answer that straightforward question ? or do you not wish to recognize that the TV screen interferes with the EM stream and the screen emits photons as a result ? How does thought experiment equate to me wanting you to be electrocuted are you on some kind of drugs? Edited August 27, 2019 by Mordred
moth Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 1 minute ago, scifimath said: Sure, a person placing a detector is the ritual required to request a physical particle. Why does a perfectly good detector fail, by your estimation, just because a funny shadow from a double slit falls on it?
Mordred Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 I'd hate to see the discussion of the two slit done by quantum dot detectors and emitters lmao. 1
Strange Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 7 hours ago, scifimath said: The final screen doesn't count as observation because if it did ..the particle would not ever show fringe. Of course it is an observation: we observe where the particle hits. You wouldn't observe the interference fringes if you didn't observe where the particles hit. I don't know why you think it "would never show fringe" but that is clearly false. 6 hours ago, scifimath said: So I guess I found the spot you guys don't want to let go of. It most certainly is not bollocks when it comes to what is counted as observation. Observation has to let the particle to continue moving or else it's void. Who says that is the case? We would be very limited in what we could measure if that were the case. Radar wouldn't work. DVD players wouldn't work. We would be blind and deaf. And so on. That is a pretty daft definition of observation. 6 hours ago, scifimath said: Someone was trying to claim the matter wave of an election should hold the results as an atom. No one ever said that. 6 hours ago, scifimath said: Fringe is not evidence of physical objects interacting. What do you mean by "physical objects"? 6 hours ago, scifimath said: ou are kidding yourself if you see the final screen as observation ..the particle didn't. Any interaction counts as an observation in quantum theory, so it definitely counters as an observation. 5 hours ago, scifimath said: I got the memo, the final screen isn't measurement because it's not while the particle is in flight. Can you provide a source that supports this definition? 5 hours ago, scifimath said: I just explained it, you don't get to deny it. We do when your explanation is (a) made up and (b) wrong. 4 hours ago, scifimath said: Funny how the facts are on my side Only the "facts" you have invented.
Strange Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 8 hours ago, scifimath said: The final screen doesn't count as observation because if it did ..the particle would not ever show fringe. It may be worth highlighting a few things 1. As far as I know, a screen is not used in the quantum version of the experiment as you would not be able to see where a single particle hit. 2. When making the “which slit” measurement, the particles going through the slit are not observed at all. Certainly not “in flight” because any such observation of a photon, for example, would destroy it. 3. The observation that is actually made uses exactly the same sort of detector as the “screen” so you can’t say one is an observation and the other isn’t.
swansont Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 9 hours ago, scifimath said: Observation has to let the particle to continue moving or else it's void. In literal observation (eyesight) the photon is destroyed. Your claim is tantamount to saying we can't actually see.
scifimath Posted August 27, 2019 Author Posted August 27, 2019 1 hour ago, swansont said: In literal observation (eyesight) the photon is destroyed. Your claim is tantamount to saying we can't actually see. Nice try, you don't see light unless it bounced off something. 3 hours ago, Strange said: It may be worth highlighting a few things 1. As far as I know, a screen is not used in the quantum version of the experiment as you would not be able to see where a single particle hit. 2. When making the “which slit” measurement, the particles going through the slit are not observed at all. Certainly not “in flight” because any such observation of a photon, for example, would destroy it. 3. The observation that is actually made uses exactly the same sort of detector as the “screen” so you can’t say one is an observation and the other isn’t. 1. The final panel then 2. Polarizers are used while in flight 3. Oh, but I can. I discovered it only matters if you test it in flight and the particle can continue moving. There isn't a scenario you can use the final panel to change the outcome.
Ghideon Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, scifimath said: Nice try, you don't see light unless it bounced off something. I can see stars by looking at them, no need to bounce the light off something. What do you mean?
Mordred Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, scifimath said: 3. Oh, but I can. I discovered it only matters if you test it in flight and the particle can continue moving. There isn't a scenario you can use the final panel to change the outcome. Nonsense a beam splitter takes the light wave at frequency and emits two beams each at half the frequency of the original. This forms and entangled photon pair from a single photon. Then using parametric down conversion through a filter you then filter out one polarization state in the Feymann which way experiment versions of the two slit experiment. Any time you interfere with a photon you alter its original state. The original photon wave function collapses. The portion that reflects is a different photon state. Thus a different photon. Altering the frequency is literally how you eliminate the fringes from interfering with the experiment. It is also how you can alter the amount of quanta sent to reduce the photons sent in a beam. Edited August 27, 2019 by Mordred
scifimath Posted August 27, 2019 Author Posted August 27, 2019 5 hours ago, Strange said: Of course it is an observation: we observe where the particle hits. You wouldn't observe the interference fringes if you didn't observe where the particles hit. I don't know why you think it "would never show fringe" but that is clearly false. Who says that is the case? We would be very limited in what we could measure if that were the case. Radar wouldn't work. DVD players wouldn't work. We would be blind and deaf. And so on. Measuring the particles on the final panel is an observation after the fact. It doesn't play a role while the particle is in flight. Why would the final panel be able to change the outcome? When I said void, I just mean the experiment is over. 15 minutes ago, Ghideon said: I can see stars by looking at them, no need to bounce the light off something. What do you mean? Your eyes are the final panel
Recommended Posts