Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 179

Thread: Double Slit Experiment

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    213

    Double Slit Experiment

    "The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

    Everyone is familiar with the traditional Double Slit Experiment, if you start with a electron, which everyone immediately imagines or thinks of a 'particle', which then passes through a double slit, an interference pattern is formed, as if the particle asks as a wave and passes through both slits.

    Hence the duality of the electron, particle or wave.....

    The question is what happens if you 'remove' the electron, to infinity for example or behind a 'quantum barrier', or inside a black hole as in the case of Hawking radiation (but that's another story).

    You still have an electron, but instead of thinking of a 'particle electron' you have to only imagine a 'quantum electron', that is, there is a finite probability that an 'electron' probability distribution exists somewhere in the experimental frame of reference.

    Once you remove the concept of a 'particle electron' the duality immediate disappears.

    The experiment simply becomes a probability distribution, which can pass through the double slits causing an interference pattern, as expected.

    As they say a picture paints a thousand words....

    Kind Regards

    Terry Giblin
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment.jpg 
Views:	608 
Size:	61.0 KB 
ID:	10971   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	electron or photon.jpg 
Views:	672 
Size:	54.2 KB 
ID:	10972  
    Last edited by Terry Giblin; 2009-Oct-10 at 10:57 AM. Reason: experimental diagram keeps disappearing

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Technically, the 'traditional double-slit experiment' is done with photons.

    Beyond that, I dont really get your point. If you dont have an electron pass through the experiment, you dont get an experiment.

    As for calling it a particle or not, an electron is pretty particle like. Just not always....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Giblin View Post
    Once you remove the concept of a 'particle electron' the duality immediate disappears.
    The experiment simply becomes a probability distribution, which can pass through the double slits causing an interference pattern, as expected.
    That's not the duality. The duality is that you need the wave to get the statistical predictions correct, and that much you are on board with. But the duality is that when you do the experiment, you never get the statistical result in each trial, rather in each trial you always get one electron striking one place on your detector. You need to do many trials to build up the prediction you are talking about, and that's the duality. The way I like to think of it is, the electron is a particle, but the mechanics of waves "tell it where to go." That generally works.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    213

    Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

    Dear Ken,

    As a respected scientist, would you say that you are satisfied with your own explanation or description?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The way I like to think of it is, the electron is a particle, but the mechanics of waves "tell it where to go." That generally works.
    Can you now please look at my diagram, or experiment, very carefully.

    Do you except that both quantum tunneling and the double slit experiment applies to electrons and has been repeated my times and is known to work.

    However the important point to understand, which I hope you agree and accept, is that quantum tunneling and the double slit experiment applies to everything, in the known universe, from electrons to black holes. The only difference is the frequency or the chance of it happening or occurring, for large 'objects' it is very small.

    The only reason we use or discuss electrons in these type of experiment, is because they are small and the quantum effects can be easily observed in the lab, but the physics and and mathematics applies to all known 'objects'.

    In my diagram, I am no longer concerned what is outside of the box - to the left of the 'quantum barrier', we can assume they are at infinity. (We can remove the object, to infinity, without changing the experiment)

    I am only interested in whats inside the experiment, what the question mark (?) is?

    "An electron does not exist until it is observed", the same can be said about black holes, "A black hole does not exist until it is observed".....

    Therefore provided we do not try to observe or examine or determine what the question mark (?) is, inside the box, which would immediately collapse its 'wave function' and destroy the experiment, an interference pattern will always occur or be observed, depending on the original size and 'frequency' of the original source.

    The duality of an electron, a 'particle' or a wave, is only depending on the observer and the experiment in which it is being studied, has nothing to do with the electron itself, it is a wave a 'photon' of energy which can exhibit 'particle' like properties.....

    E=hf (or E=mc^2 when the energy is large.)

    The only problem or confusion caused by the double slit experiment has nothing to do with the properties of an electron, but the way in which the experiment is described.

    "Starting with a 'particle' electron which is allowed to passes through a double slit, a wave interference pattern is produced"

    There is no such thing as a particle in physics, except to describe a 'packet' a 'photon' of 'wave' energy.

    An electron is the name given to a 'photon' of 'wave' energy of a certain amount.

    Kind Regards

    Terry Giblin
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment.jpg 
Views:	305 
Size:	61.0 KB 
ID:	10975   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	electron or photon.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	54.2 KB 
ID:	10976  
    Last edited by Terry Giblin; 2009-Oct-10 at 10:59 AM. Reason: experimental diagram keeps disappearing

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Giblin View Post
    As a respected scientist, would you say that you are satisfied with your own explanation or description?
    Yes, that description serves to describe everything that electrons or any other particle has been observed to do.
    Do you except that both quantum tunneling and the double slit experiment applies to electrons and has been repeated my times and is known to work.
    Certainly.
    However the important point to understand, which I hope you agree and accept, is that quantum tunneling and the double slit experiment applies to everything, in the known universe, from electrons to black holes. The only difference is the frequency or the chance of it happening or occurring, for large 'objects' it is very small.
    So far as we can tell, in principle, yes. But the practice is another matter-- for many systems, it is impossible to set them up in such a way that we could observe tunneling or interference, and not just because it is unlikely, but simply because we could never exert the necessary control over the apparatus.
    The only reason we use or discuss electrons in these type of experiment, is because they are small and the quantum effects can be easily observed in the lab, but the physics and and mathematics applies to all known 'objects'.
    Sort of, but the other reason we use electrons is that we can exert the necessary control to get the quantum effects. Other systems would exhibit "decoherence" in the absence of said control.
    "An electron does not exist until it is observed", the same can be said about black holes, "A black hole does not exist until it is observed".....
    Actually, I wouldn't use that statement for either electrons or black holes. As I said, a perfectly successful ontology is to imagine that the electron always existed, but we did not know how to ascribe to it a concept of location until we observed its position, or we did not know how to ascribe to it a concept of motion until we observed its momentum. The wave aspects are needed to predict experimental outcomes, not to attribute existence to the electron. Put loosely, the ontology of an electron is its particle nature, and the way we connect that ontology to the epistemology of science is its wave nature. That's the duality, the ontology and epistemology are disconnected. That disconnect is likely related to the other fundamental disconnect that permeates all of quantum mechanics-- the ontology is microscopic, the epistemology involves macroscopic observations.
    Therefore provided we do not try to observe or examine or determine what the question mark (?) is, inside the box, which would immediately collapse its 'wave function' and destroy the experiment, an interference pattern will always occur or be observed, depending on the original size and 'frequency' of the original source.
    Yes.
    The duality of an electron, a 'particle' or a wave, is only depending on the observer and the experiment in which it is being studied, has nothing to do with the electron itself, it is a wave a 'photon' of energy which can exhibit 'particle' like properties.....
    I'm not sure what you mean by "the electron itself." Everything we know about electrons, including the very word, are the result of the application of human intelligence to macroscopic experimental outputs. There is no distinction between "the electron itself" and the kinds of experimental tests we can subject that concept to.
    The only problem or confusion caused by the double slit experiment has nothing to do with the properties of an electron, but the way in which the experiment is described.
    Again, there is no such thing as the "properties of an electron" independent from said experiments.
    "Starting with a 'particle' electron which is allowed to passes through a double slit, a wave interference pattern is produced"

    There is no such thing as a particle in physics, except to describe a 'packet' a 'photon' of 'wave' energy.
    Yes, a particle is what the electron "is" when its nature is probed, and it does indeed describe a packet of energy (and in this case, rest mass and charge and spin).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14,315
    I disagree with Richard Feynman.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by mugaliens
    I disagree with Richard Feynman.
    I'll bite. Care to elaborate?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,571
    Thread moved to ATM and now subject to the relevant rules.

    mugaliens claim needs to be made in a separate thread.
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Giblin View Post
    The question is what happens if you 'remove' the electron, to infinity for example or behind a 'quantum barrier', or inside a black hole as in the case of Hawking radiation (but that's another story).

    You still have an electron, but instead of thinking of a 'particle electron' you have to only imagine a 'quantum electron', that is, there is a finite probability that an 'electron' probability distribution exists somewhere in the experimental frame of reference.
    I seem to be missing something possibly because your picture is too small to read. I can enlarge the picture but the resolution is still too poor to see much.

    You appear to be saying an electron is a wave even though we normally detect it and think of it as a particle.

    You also appear to be saying that an electron can have a non-local probability distribution that acts like a wave.

    So we can have a real probability distribution path for a specific electron even though the chance is extremely remote (but not impossible) that your 'gone far away' electron will appear from the great beyond to follow the path.

    Or, for another example, an electron can begin a one meter path in Paris and finish in New York. This may be an unlikely path for an electron but even more so for an elephant.

    Am I in the ballpark here?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom View Post
    I seem to be missing something possibly because your picture is too small to read.
    The thumbnail?

    Click on it, the full res picture should open in a new browser window. Isn't it?
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    The thumbnail?

    Click on it, the full res picture should open in a new browser window. Isn't it?
    Thanks, it works fine now. I also see two pictures instead of just one.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Giblin View Post
    "The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

    Everyone is familiar with the traditional Double Slit Experiment, if you start with a electron, which everyone immediately imagines or thinks of a 'particle', which then passes through a double slit, an interference pattern is formed, as if the particle asks as a wave and passes through both slits.

    Hence the duality of the electron, particle or wave.....

    The question is what happens if you 'remove' the electron, to infinity for example or behind a 'quantum barrier', or inside a black hole as in the case of Hawking radiation (but that's another story).

    You still have an electron, but instead of thinking of a 'particle electron' you have to only imagine a 'quantum electron', that is, there is a finite probability that an 'electron' probability distribution exists somewhere in the experimental frame of reference.

    Once you remove the concept of a 'particle electron' the duality immediate disappears.

    The experiment simply becomes a probability distribution, which can pass through the double slits causing an interference pattern, as expected.

    As they say a picture paints a thousand words....

    Kind Regards

    Terry Giblin
    I think I don't quite understand your experimental setup. In order for the double-slit experiment to work one needs:

    (a) a source of particles (electrons in this case, but any particle will do)
    (b) an screen which is impenetrable by the particles, with two slits in it
    (c) some sort of detection device to detect the particles after they have moved through the slits.

    Can you describe the way these elements are arranged in your setup? Please be as specific as possible.

    Also, you speak of a "quantum barrier". What do you mean by that? And how is this barrier situated with respect to elements (a), (b) and (c)?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    213

    Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

    Dear Mugaliens,

    Quote Originally Posted by mugaliens View Post
    I disagree with Richard Feynman.
    Can you please elaborate?

    Are you referring to the statement I made at the begging of this thread.

    "The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

    In light of my new experiment and its obvious conclusions?

    I know its very hard to disagree with an experiment.

    I never had the pleasure or honour of meeting Richard Feynman, in my option, Richard Feynman is one if not the greatest Physicists to ever live.

    He does not receive the publicity or recognition he deserves, I believe the powers that be, do not want the general public to know what Richard Feynman is trying to say.

    If people knew the truth, the real truth, about physics and mathematics, their public perception would evaporate and vanish...... They could no longer call themselves the Enlightened ones.

    Let there be light.

    Richard Feynman knew to much and explained it, in plain simple terms that even I could understand.

    Richard Feynman give the greatest set of 'physics' lectures I have ever seen, but notice he had to go all the way to New Zealand, to give his greatest lecture.

    http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

    Watch and learn from the true master.

    Kind Regards

    Terry Giblin

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

    But Mahatma Gandhi said it best,
    "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

    "And I pray thee, loving Jesus, that as Thou hast graciously given me to drink in with delight the words of Thy knowledge, so Thou wouldst mercifully grant me to attain one day to Thee, the fountain of all wisdom and to appear forever before Thy face." - St Bede the Venerable, Jarrow.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	61.0 KB 
ID:	10982   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	electron or photon.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	54.2 KB 
ID:	10983  

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    213

    Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

    Quote Originally Posted by GuyHill View Post
    I think I don't quite understand your experimental setup. In order for the double-slit experiment to work one needs:

    (a) a source of particles (electrons in this case, but any particle will do)
    (b) an screen which is impenetrable by the particles, with two slits in it
    (c) some sort of detection device to detect the particles after they have moved through the slits.

    Can you describe the way these elements are arranged in your setup? Please be as specific as possible.

    Also, you speak of a "quantum barrier". What do you mean by that? And how is this barrier situated with respect to elements (a), (b) and (c)?
    Dear GuyHill,

    I would recommend that you speak to the moderators, I attached a copy of my experimental diagram, at the beginning of this thread, which shows all the points which you are asking about, but as mentioned previously by others, my diagram of the experiment appears to come and go .... now you see it, now your don't.

    with regards to your question regarding the "quantum barrier", this term is used to describe the barrier in quantum tunneling experiments, it is simply a potential energy gradient, which is greater than the energy of the electron. In classical terms the electron should never over come the potential energy gradient, which has a great energy than the electron. However because of quantum tunneling the electron manages to over come the quantum barrier.

    In my diagram it is simply the 'wall' between the electron and the double slits.

    The best example I could find of quantum tunneling and a quantum barrier (potential barrier) is:

    http://phys.educ.ksu.edu/vqm/html/qtunneling.html#

    I hope this helps....

    Let there be light.

    King Regards

    Terry Giblin

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

    But Mahatma Gandhi said it best,
    "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

    "And I pray thee, loving Jesus, that as Thou hast graciously given me to drink in with delight the words of Thy knowledge, so Thou wouldst mercifully grant me to attain one day to Thee, the fountain of all wisdom and to appear forever before Thy face." - St Bede the Venerable, Jarrow.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment.jpg 
Views:	251 
Size:	61.0 KB 
ID:	10984  

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Yes, that description serves to describe everything that electrons or any other particle has been observed to do.Certainly.
    So far as we can tell, in principle, yes.
    Hello Ken,

    mind if I ask a few questions.

    Are you familiar with WSM and Milo Wolff?
    Do you agree with his theory?
    Do you agree with the basic premise that rotation/spin determines polarity/charge.
    CW vs. CCW
    Thus the electron becomes a positron simply by altering its 'spin'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post

    Put loosely, the ontology of an electron is its particle nature, and the way we connect that ontology to the epistemology of science is its wave nature. That's the duality, the ontology and epistemology are disconnected. That disconnect is likely related to the other fundamental disconnect that permeates all of quantum mechanics-- the ontology is microscopic, the epistemology involves macroscopic observations.
    Spoken like a true 21st century alchemist...it all defaults to the microcosm and macrocosm.
    Two word/worlds held dear by those who revere the Emerald Tablet.

    Can you explain how the modern scientist today differs from a practicing alchemist/scientist like Sir Isaac Newton?

    Maybe that is what made Sir Isaac greater than the rest of his day.
    His appreciation for the ancient hermetic arts, that today get dissed as poppycock.

    namaste

    Moderator's note: Raphael, I've approved your post through the moderation queue but please tone down the inflammatory rhetoric. Civility and decorum are the rule here.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    213

    Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    Thread moved to ATM and now subject to the relevant rules.

    mugaliens claim needs to be made in a separate thread.
    Dear pzkpfw,

    For the record, can you please explain why this thread has been placed in the 'Against the Mainstream'?

    mugaliens, who is a member of the 'Order of Kilopi', after looking at my experiment diagram and reading my description and logical conclusions said "I disagree with Richard Feynman", so you immediately moved my thread to 'Against the Mainstream'. Why? I have never disagreed with Richard Feynman, I have the greatest respect for Richard Feynman, I have simply continued his work and discovered what I believe is a solution to the double slit experiment.

    To the best of my knowledge I have said nothing which goes against the main stream ideas and understanding of the double slit experiment.

    In fact, all I have really done is to point out the real true physics behind the double slit experiment and quantum tunneling.

    Most if not all of the general public and the majority of physics students do not appreciate or understand or are aware that the double slit experiment and the quantum tunneling applies to everything in the universe from electrons to black holes.

    No one, no 'Order of Kilopi", no 'moderator', no 'Nobel Laureate', no 'physics professor', no 'physics post-doc' can say my experiment is against the main stream ideas and understanding.

    It simply goes beyond the accepted main stream and answers the question which Richard Feynman was trying to solve himself.

    How can I defend an experiment and no body can attack, which everyone accepts and knows works, according to accepted physics theories.

    Is there any 'moderator' or 'Order of Kilopi' that disagrees with my experiment?

    The beauty of my experiment is that it can be expanded to infinity if required, as shown below with the attached documents.

    Let there be light.

    Kind Regards

    Terry Giblin

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

    But Mahatma Gandhi said it best,
    "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

    "And I pray thee, loving Jesus, that as Thou hast graciously given me to drink in with delight the words of Thy knowledge, so Thou wouldst mercifully grant me to attain one day to Thee, the fountain of all wisdom and to appear forever before Thy face." - St Bede the Venerable, Jarrow.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment.jpg 
Views:	50 
Size:	61.0 KB 
ID:	11001   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment Expanded Version.jpg 
Views:	272 
Size:	20.6 KB 
ID:	11002   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	electron or photon.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	54.2 KB 
ID:	11003  
    Last edited by Terry Giblin; 2009-Oct-10 at 11:01 AM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Giblin View Post

    Most if not all of the general public and the majority of physics students do not appreciate or understand or are aware that the double slit experiment and the quantum tunneling applies to everything in the universe from electrons to black holes.


    Terry Giblin
    Terry do you have a link to these claims?
    I also have a simple model that makes the same claim.

    essentially my model shows how big/small objects follow the same 'path'.
    thus the electron as it moves from valance to valance and the sun traveling along its ecliptic follow a similar route.

    you show me yours and I will you you mine.
    then we can fight over whose is bigger ...

    namaste

    Raphael

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Raphael View Post
    Are you familiar with WSM and Milo Wolff?
    No, never heard of either, had to look them up.
    Do you agree with his theory?
    I don't see any "theory" there at all, just standard quantum mechanics written in obfuscated and imprecise language. If there is a "theory" there, it needs to make different predictions from quantum mechanics. What's more, that would make it ATM, and I have found ATM discussions to be pretty much a colossal waste of time, as well as inappropriate for this section of the forum.
    Do you agree with the basic premise that rotation/spin determines polarity/charge.
    Sounds like meaningless word associations. Is there a testable prediction in here somewhere?
    Can you explain how the modern scientist today differs from a practicing alchemist/scientist like Sir Isaac Newton?
    The modern scientist knows a lot more.
    Maybe that is what made Sir Isaac greater than the rest of his day.
    His appreciation for the ancient hermetic arts, that today get dissed as poppycock.
    The irony of your logic is that much of what Sir Isaac did is not dismissed as poppycock, but rather revered as the foundations of much of modern physics. Maybe it's just that some of it was poppycock, and some of it wasn't, and the test of time has served us well to answer that.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Giblin View Post
    Most if not all of the general public and the majority of physics students do not appreciate or understand or are aware that the double slit experiment and the quantum tunneling applies to everything in the universe from electrons to black holes.
    Actually, I think you'll find that this is perfectly standard pedagogy for physics students, and of course the "general public" doesn't know anything about quantum mechanics, whether or not it applies to black holes.
    Is there any 'moderator' or 'Order of Kilopi' that disagrees with my experiment?
    I'm not sure what there is to disagree with, I really don't see anything about it that is fundamentally different from the two-slit experiment or standard notions about quantum tunneling. So my problem with it is not that it is ATM, it is that I don't see anything new or insightful stemming from it. Perhaps I am missing the point you are making with it.

  20. #20
    Your views are ATM. You propose in your first post that our mainstream understanding of electrons as "particles" is flawed and leads to a need to introduce "duality" concepts to explain electron behavior. You propose that by assuming the electron was always a wave and never really a distinct particle, we therefore have no requirement for duality, thus your post is indeed ATM. Most mainstream physicists assume the electron is a true particle, not at all virtual.

    The double slit experiment tells us less about particles, and much more about the passage of time. It tells us that electrons or photons in a beam can interact with one another and even with themselves at any given point in "time." This thoery is explained as a many worlds argument. The electron takes all possible paths through the slits in various universes, it is only the path that is shortest that we observe as real in our universe. The electrons or photons seem to know their futures from the instant they are fired along the beam, as in they interfere with one another based upon their "future" configuarions, not the current one at the time of initial firing. Two photons of the exact same properties can actually tell beforehand that at some point in their future (the future being a spot on the back wall) the paths of these two entities will collide and will violate the Exclusion principle, so "before" the electrons ever begin their physical travel they are already aware that one of the two electrons must take a different path to avoid exclusion violation leading to interference patterns. This to me is the real kicker of this experiment, that these electrons and photons know where they are going before they ever get there thus causing interference. These particles can see their own futures vey clearly.

    Agree Feynman is second only to Einstein and Newton.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Capricorn Star View Post
    The double slit experiment tells us less about particles, and much more about the passage of time. It tells us that electrons or photons in a beam can interact with one another and even with themselves at any given point in "time." This thoery is explained as a many worlds argument.
    I'm not sure whether to call that explanation ATM or just imprecise, but frankly I don't see a lot of value in it, so I would be uncomfortable using it to replace as more "mainstream" what Terry Giblin is saying (which also seems pretty unclear what claims are being made).
    The electron takes all possible paths through the slits in various universes, it is only the path that is shortest that we observe as real in our universe.
    No, we don't observe the path at all, unless we specifically design an experiment (different from the double slit experiment) that can observe the path. What's more, in the many-universe picture, there is no fundamental distinction between those other universes and ours-- we could not say the path is any "straighter" in our universe versus those others. You are conflating the "many worlds" picture with the "sum over consistent histories" picture, but even those don't claim an actual path is taken in our universe. Whether or not an "actual path" exists in the absence of an experiment that could identify it is kind of a philosophical issue, and is certainly not answered by science.
    The electrons or photons seem to know their futures from the instant they are fired along the beam, as in they interfere with one another based upon their "future" configuarions, not the current one at the time of initial firing.
    This is also an unusual and seemingly unnecessary way to frame interference. I'm just not clear the significance of these words-- if a quarterback throws a football, is it not its "future configuration", not the current one, that gets caught by the receiver? Why is that relevant to what Terry Giblin is claiming?
    Two photons of the exact same properties can actually tell beforehand that at some point in their future (the future being a spot on the back wall) the paths of these two entities will collide and will violate the Exclusion principle, so "before" the electrons ever begin their physical travel they are already aware that one of the two electrons must take a different path to avoid exclusion violation leading to interference patterns.
    Although the Pauli exclusion principle is another astonishing principle of quantum mechanics (which Feynman should probably have also included along with the double slit as one of the core mysteries of quantum mechanics), it has nothing whatsoever to do with the double slit experiment, which can be done with electrons or photons. Please note that photons are bosons, so do not exhibit any exclusion principles at all.

    These particles can see their own futures vey clearly.
    In a way different from the way a football can "see its own future" once released by a quarterback? It sounds like you are saying that quantum mechanics exhibits determinism, which is odd because it is actually a somewhat less deterministic theory than classical physics, owing to its fundamentally stochastic character.

  22. #22
    Ken,

    Photons are force carriers, and do not exclude, but they do cancel one another out if they are of the same exact energy, thus causing them to interfere with one another as they pass through the slits. The exclusion principle is exactly the reason why electrons exhibit this pattern and tennis balls do not. For electrons it works due to exclusion, for bosons it works due to cancellation. The result is the same, a scattering occurs. Electrons are often treated as the "boson" of electicity.

    As far as the football knowing where it will land, I think this is reasonable in the case of an electron or photon being fired into open space. If you consider the distance traveled by these photons or electrons to relate to the passage of time, since time is required for the experiment to function, then the very act of interference means that these photons are taking divergent paths due to some understanding of their future configurations in relation to one another. If not for this "prior" knowledge, how then do you explain the interference. Either the photons travel in real time, meet at a point in space, and then like colliding tennis balls cancel each other out by traveling into opposite directions from that random point in spacetime forward creating bands on the wall. Or, the photons determine their future paths and cancel each other out before taking the time needed to actually "meet" at some point in space. It seems to me that the photons interfere from the start, from the moment they are fired, not later, after they have collided. This indicates to me an understanding of their future relative positions. For if the scattering was to occur midway between the firing tube and the wall, would not some of the energy be deflected back toward the emitter, which would mean that fewer photons would strike the back wall than the number that was fired. But we do not observe photons being redirected backward to the direction of the emitter, or in any other number of directions. This seems to me to indicate that the photons or electrons take divergent paths from the start of the journey, this way all photons eventually end up on the back wall just as experiments verify. Prioro knowledge seems to be the only solution.

    Even waves require time to propogate. An interference pattern on a wall indicates nothing more than the configuration of the energy at that point in spacetime. Even more reason to consoider that the particles start offf on divergent paths instead of becoming divergent after collisions.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    213

    Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Actually, I think you'll find that this is perfectly standard pedagogy for physics students, and of course the "general public" doesn't know anything about quantum mechanics, whether or not it applies to black holes.
    I'm not sure what there is to disagree with, I really don't see anything about it that is fundamentally different from the two-slit experiment or standard notions about quantum tunneling. So my problem with it is not that it is ATM, it is that I don't see anything new or insightful stemming from it. Perhaps I am missing the point you are making with it.
    Dear Ken,

    For years I could not understand why the physicist or mathematician I showed and spoke to, about my experiment, did not get excited or amazed at what it meant or appreciated what its implications were.

    Then one day a well known and respected Physicist explained to me, why no one got excited or was amazed at my discovery.

    He told me the simple plain truth, "if I switch on a light switch and the light appears, who cares where the electron comes from or what it is?"

    At the moment, all my anger and frustration at follow physicists and mathematicians, like yourself now, for not understand or appreciating my experiment, disappeared, vanished.

    I immediately realized that in the whole world of science past and present, there has only been a handful, 4 or 5 people in the world, who has ever cared or even thought about this or similar questions.

    Of which I am one.

    As Richard Feynman said himself, no one, including himself understands quantum mechanics, yes they can do the mathematics and yes the experiments work, but no one really understands it.

    The more you study quantum mechanics the less you understand it.

    If you think you know quantum mechanics, you dont understand it.

    One of the best examples I can think of, is the hydrogen atom, which is the first and simplest of all the known elements, it is made of a proton and electron, the electron orbits the proton nucleus.

    Now ask any Physicist or Mathematician to try and visualize what it looks like. Even thou we know the answer, mathematically, we still cannot understand or comprehend, using our limited experience and understanding, why nature is the way it is.

    By solving the double slit experiment, by removing our false concept or perception of reality, a 'particle' or a 'wave', I have managed to see a tiny glimpse of the true nature of reality, a simple probability density distribution, a probability cloud, 'particle' on one side to the left and 'waves' on the other side to the right depending on the experiment performed and the observer.

    As with any probability, it either happens or does not, 0 or 1, you either see it or you don't, true or false, 'particle' or 'wave'.

    No new physics, I hear you cry.....

    My new experiment and what I have said does not "fundamentally different from the two-slit experiment or standard notions about quantum tunneling", if it did, it would mean it was wrong.

    For a new experiment to be correct, by definition, it must first agree with already accepted proven experiments, otherwise it would be proven wrong immediately.

    It was using the knowledge I had gained from solving the double slit experiment and applying to everything I had been taught or learnt previously, from quarks to quasars, that I realized that the big bang theory had to be wrong, which eventually lead to my discussion at Cambridge with Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking.

    'Particles', 'Gravity', 'Black Holes', 'Hawking radiation', etc., do not exist, they are only different words or interpretations, in the mind of the observer, of the true fundamental structure of space and time.

    Is this Physics, metaphysics, philosophy or theology, I don't personally know and don't care, all I know is that if you solve the double slit experiment it opens a new world of possiblities and you see the world in a completely different perspective, as I have done.

    I only wish to share this with you and hope that you see what I have seen.

    I am simply trying to share it with you.

    Let there be light.

    Kind Regards

    Terry Giblin

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

    But Mahatma Gandhi said it best,
    "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

    "And I pray thee, loving Jesus, that as Thou hast graciously given me to drink in with delight the words of Thy knowledge, so Thou wouldst mercifully grant me to attain one day to Thee, the fountain of all wisdom and to appear forever before Thy face." - St Bede the Venerable, Jarrow.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	hydrogen_density_plots.jpg 
Views:	285 
Size:	39.2 KB 
ID:	11005   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment.jpg 
Views:	53 
Size:	61.0 KB 
ID:	11006   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Terry Giblin Double Slit Experiment Expanded Version.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	20.6 KB 
ID:	11007   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	electron or photon.jpg 
Views:	56 
Size:	54.2 KB 
ID:	11008  

  24. #24
    Terry,

    You mention Penrose and Hawking. You are very fortunate to have met personally with these individuals. I envy you I think.

    I agree 100% with what you are saying. No matter how well intended we are, we will simply never be able to describe nature as it truly is, only as we perceive it to be so far. There are limits to language, even with math, so there is a certain amount of nature that will remain unclear and uncertain to us. There must be a good reason for this "horizon."

    I also agree, something about the big bang model is very wrong. Either the big bang theory is incorrect, or we are just plain wrong about our universe of today, or we are wrong about both to some degree. Either way, something is definetly not right. I think the problem is that we do not yet have a good enough description for gravity.

    Seeing that the world as complex and multifaceted is a great gift few posses. Many people do not understand that often the exception is actually the proof of the rule, not its contradiction. Reality is composed philosophically in the principle of opposites. Thus reality is a poem. As far as physical particle or wave duality, this is my whole point in a thread I am running currently. Just like "photons" can behave as waves or particles in certain instances, such I believe that empty space can behave as a dual nature. "Empty space" which is not really empty but filled with ever increasing amounts of probabalistic degrees of freedom between distant points, could be described at any given moment as continuous (wave) or particle like (quantum gravity / quantum acceleration of the universe). Think about what an expanding universe means to the laws of probability in determining the paths of photons as they travel through this complex reality made of more than a simple double slit? This is an important question and key to the future of physics. We have yet to make any real headway on explaining the expanding universe and the consequences of such. There is no current accepted quantum gravity nor quantum expansion based theory but when it is found it will surely describe empty space as discreet in some sense and quantized, not truly continuous at all. The reason we currently cannot make sense of gravity or accelerating space expansion is because we refuse to accept that empty space itself is of a dual nature. The "particle" nature of space leads to many of the effects we call "gravity" and "accelerated Universal expansion." Gravity is supposed to be working against the expansion, but instead we sede the expansion is speeding up. This should be impossible, unless gravity and the expansion of the universe are indeed linked.

    I digress, forgive me. I do not mean to hijack your thread!

    Anyhow, I like your thread and I think you are very much onto something. If I see your point, it is that we must be careful with labels such as particle and wave, because though labels can help us conceptually to understand a subject in certain instances, they can also limit us from observing the true nature of a given subject in other instances. If you look closely enough at any one thing you should find evidence of everything else. Nothing, not even an electron is so simple as to be only particle or only wave.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    What's more, in the many-universe picture, there is no fundamental distinction between those other universes and ours-- we could not say the path is any "straighter" in our universe versus those others.
    agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    You are conflating the "many worlds" picture with the "sum over consistent histories" picture, but even those don't claim an actual path is taken in our universe. Whether or not an "actual path" exists in the absence of an experiment that could identify it is kind of a philosophical issue, and is certainly not answered by science.
    If you could live for about 26,000 years, about one complete precession cycle...you might see a pattern...you might see that an actual path exists.

    I also feel that the path of our sun, would be analogous to how an electron moves from valance to valance, either toward or away from the center.

    In other words...figure out the electron, and you learn about the Sun or vice versa.

    namaste

    Raphael
    Last edited by Raphael; 2009-Oct-09 at 11:27 PM.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Capricorn Star View Post
    I also agree, something about the big bang model is very wrong. Either the big bang theory is incorrect, or we are just plain wrong about our universe of today, or we are wrong about both to some degree. Either way, something is definetly not right. I think the problem is that we do not yet have a good enough description for gravity.
    I agree.
    I think it is obvious.
    The answer is often to be found in the question.

    What is wrong with the Big Bang?

    I know...where is the BANG in the Big Bang?
    All it discusses is LIGHT, bouncing photons and electrons off mirrors and such.

    SOUND frequencies are never mentioned or discussed or introduced as part of the equation.
    But why would they be...SPACE needs a vacuum for SOUND waves to travel through.

    SOUND is connected to Gravity...IMHO
    Because Space is not a vacuum...thus a medium could exist.

    And Gravity is probably connected to plasma or the alfven waves or something else resembling the luminiferous aether that was eliminated back in the 1800s, thus establishing SPACE as a vacuum.

    The KEY I feel are SOUND waves.
    Incredibly low or high frequencies.

    Frequencies have been picked up by the Chandra telescope/microphone that are 57 octaves below middle C.

    Those ever present SOUND/gravity waves/frequencies are in the room when they do double slit experiments.
    However when the 'observer' is in the room...the observation trumps the weaker gravity wave causing the electron wave function to collapse.
    Because the 'observer' emits a stronger field that overrides the gravity wave at the shorter distance, causing the electron to alter its behavior.
    What if?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1840526284618#
    "the observer collapses the wave function by observing"
    namaste

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Giblin View Post
    "The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

    Everyone is familiar with the traditional Double Slit Experiment, if you start with a electron, which everyone immediately imagines or thinks of a 'particle', which then passes through a double slit, an interference pattern is formed, as if the particle asks as a wave and passes through both slits.

    Hence the duality of the electron, particle or wave.....

    The question is what happens if you 'remove' the electron, to infinity for example or behind a 'quantum barrier', or inside a black hole as in the case of Hawking radiation (but that's another story).

    You still have an electron, but instead of thinking of a 'particle electron' you have to only imagine a 'quantum electron', that is, there is a finite probability that an 'electron' probability distribution exists somewhere in the experimental frame of reference.

    Once you remove the concept of a 'particle electron' the duality immediate disappears.

    The experiment simply becomes a probability distribution, which can pass through the double slits causing an interference pattern, as expected.

    As they say a picture paints a thousand words....

    Kind Regards

    Terry Giblin
    The question is what happens if you 'remove' the electron, to infinity for example or behind a 'quantum barrier',
    Well, quantum theory is that of the finite.

    I would like to know your a posteriori method to convert from the double slit experiment to this "infinity" you claim under a finite theory.

    Every ATM quantum theory attack I have seen here has confused the infinite logic of a priori reasoning with the finite logic of quantum theory.


    All ATM logic that proposes an attack on quantum theory from the cardinality of the real numbers, immediately fails.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post

    All ATM logic that proposes an attack on quantum theory from the cardinality of the real numbers, immediately fails.
    here is more ATM logic.

    prove to me SPACE is a vacuum?

    quantum mechanics/theory is mathematical...and it was a handy tool to access back in the 1800s.
    fact is ... the quantum leap was the believe Space was a vacuum.
    this allowed the egg-head to move the classroom called NATURE indoors to be discussed on a flat blackboard jungle.

    why would they do this?
    Why would they be anxious/happy to turn SPACE into a theoretical vacuum?

    Because if they admitted SPACE was filled with invisible energetic waves and particles bouncing around creating invisible interference waves....how how how would you ever arrive at a GRAND Unified Theory of Everything.

    I would think it Impossible...

    proof?
    >>the experts have yet to track ONE measly electron with any real accuracy...I mean it is the electron/proton and the double slit experiment that in fact befuddled/s the INDOOR mathematician temple god, who is pasty white complexion, chalked hands, because he spends too much time indoors looking at a blackboard.


    Religious content taken out by moderator.


    Shhh, sound is the key to unlocking GRAVITY.

    namaste

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,468

    Raphael, could you stop hijacking this thread by Terry Giblin?
    This thread is about the double slit experiment.
    If you want to discuss what is wrong with the big bang theory (and please note that the name of this theory was given by adversaries of the idea and not by the people who invented it, so the question "where is the bang" does not make any sense), then YOU will have to start a NEW thread here in ATM.

    And also, REFRAIN from making religious comments, those are not wanted on the board. I have taken them out of your message.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    2810'30"N 1644'31"W
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Giblin View Post
    I immediately realized that in the whole world of science past and present, there has only been a handful, 4 or 5 people in the world, who has ever cared or even thought about this or similar questions.

    Of which I am one.
    Such humility is truely awe-inspiring.
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry Giblin View Post
    It was using the knowledge I had gained from solving the double slit experiment and applying to everything I had been taught or learnt previously, from quarks to quasars, that I realized that the big bang theory had to be wrong, which eventually lead to my discussion at Cambridge with Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking.
    What did they say? Did they agree with you?

Similar Threads

  1. The double slit experiment
    By kevin1981 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2011-Sep-28, 03:44 PM
  2. Double slit experiment
    By kamaz in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2011-Sep-13, 07:20 PM
  3. Double Slit Experiment
    By NovaJoe in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2009-Jan-16, 06:35 AM
  4. Double Slit Experiment Utilizing Double Sources of Light
    By a1call in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-12, 05:04 PM
  5. Double slit experiment
    By afterburner in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2006-Jul-16, 10:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: