The double slit experiment and Superposition

[studiot]

Yes the excellent Khan Academy video makes no unsupportable claims and is entirely within mainstream physics.

And yes it make good use of the tried and tested Huygen's Principle to do this.

 

I have reported Dalo's two fingers to my question so I will wait for the outcome before I answer your comment Geordie.

Edited December 14, 2017 by studiot

[DrP]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes the excellent Khan Academy video makes no unsupportable claims and is entirely within mainstream physics.

And yes it make good use of the tried and tested Huygen's Principle to do this.

OK thanks  -  so diffraction is actually a wave interfering with itself then - that was new to me. It makes sense from the vid.

[Dalo]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

I have reported Dalo's two fingers to my question so I will wait for the outcome before I answer your comment Geordie.

?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Dalo said:

 Whatever the conclusion might be of this thread, I think it is my right to limit the range of my claim and to expect from others not to widen the subject unnecessarily. I have not in any way claimed that what I say of double slit experiments is applicable to interferometers, so why would you demand from me that I defend such a claim?

You are claiming that the interferometers are not applicable.

If you had claimed they were, then there would be no need to defend it, because nobody would object. It's the view of mainstream physics. It's interference.  

47 minutes ago, DrP said:

It seems like an attempt to explain diffraction by picturing a wave front as an infinite number of little waves fronts. I like the idea and follow it..  I do not know if it is accepted or not in mainstream science...  it certainly seems to be as an idea, but I am not sure there is any solid evidence or how you would test it. It is new to me anyway - when I was at college we learnt about DeBrogle and Bragg although I remember little about them as I have used nothing about what I learnt from them in my professional life. .

You have a prediction from the formula, and that makes for a pretty trivial way to test and confirm it.

[Dalo]

Just now, swansont said:

If you had claimed they were, then there would be no need to defend it, because nobody would object. It's the view of mainstream physics. It's interference.

No, I did not claim it because it is not a matter of interference. The point is the apparent disappearance of interference patterns as discussed in the context of double slit experiments. Maybe it is applicable to interferometers. Maybe not. I would not dare defend either position without further research.

[Mordred]

And the point like everything else in physics has a mathematical descriptive which is also a wave. 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Dalo said:

No, I did not claim it because it is not a matter of interference. The point is the apparent disappearance of interference patterns as discussed in the context of double slit experiments. Maybe it is applicable to interferometers. Maybe not. I would not dare defend either position without further research.

It's interference, and the pattern disappears when you have "which path" information. It's evidence that knowing the path destroys the interference, which is what you were asking for. 

But you reject it, because you have artificially narrowed the experiments you will accept, but refuse to justify why.

[Dalo]

Just now, swansont said:

you have artificially narrowed the experiments you will accept, but refuse to justify why.

I have narrowed the range of my claim. That is I think my good right.

3 hours ago, Dalo said:

The idea that observation changes the result of an experiment, whatever the further merits of the idea, remains unproven in the case of double slit experiments.

 

[Mordred]

Then defend why you have done so and refuse to accept anything related to the actual physics

[geordief]

3 hours ago, Dalo said:

The idea that observation changes the result of an experiment, whatever the further merits of the idea, remains unproven in the case of double slit experiments.

Does "observation" (for you) involve  a change in the structure of the brain (or psyche?)of the experimenter  or does it (as I would understand it) a hurdle in the experimental apparatus that the wave must pass?

[Dalo]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Then defend why you have done so and refuse to accept anything related to the actual physics

I have done so because I cannot claim what I am not certain about. As far as actual physics is concerned I am pointing at what I consider to be something that needs attention. That certainly does not mean that I am refusing physics. 

 

***********************************

20 minutes ago, geordief said:

Does "observation" (for you) involve  a change in the structure of the brain (or psyche?)of the experimenter  or does it (as I would understand it) a hurdle in the experimental apparatus that the wave must pass?

I am afraid I am not sure how to reply to your question. The issue as I understand it is whether "observing" particles destroys the interference patterns. That "observing" does not really mean "human observing", since we are talking about microscopic particles we cannot see with our naked eye. It is usually in the form of detectors, and they come in all kinds of shapes and colors, that can tell us through which the particles went.

The human brain therefore is not really needed since the whole experiment could be automatized. Some understand that as "potential" human observation. 

A very complicated question, if you ask me.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Dalo

[geordief]

37 minutes ago, Dalo said:

I am afraid I am not sure how to reply to your question. The issue as I understand it is whether "observing" particles destroys the interference patterns. That "observing" does not really mean "human observing", since we are talking about microscopic particles we cannot see with our naked eye. It is usually in the form of detectors, and they come in all kinds of shapes and colors, that can tell us through which the particles went.

The human brain therefore is not really needed since the whole experiment could be automatized. Some understand that as "potential" human observation. 

A very complicated question, if you ask me.

No ,you have answered it fine. I was just unsure as to whether this was relevant to  your question and the way you might have been framing it. I can now see it is not (I  think my concern was off topic)

Edited December 14, 2017 by geordief

[Dalo]

Just now, geordief said:

(I  think my concern was off topic)

In this case we won't discuss it exhaustively, but it might be interesting to know what it is.

[geordief]

 

9 minutes ago, Dalo said:

In this case we won't discuss it exhaustively, but it might be interesting to know what it is.

Sure. Without  good cause I was wondering whether you leant towards the view that we actually change events in the physical world by "thinking about them"

 

Some people (not myself) do seem to believe that in a half baked way . It is not a view amenable to scientific discussion in my view but is doubtless entertaining to  those who are attracted to it.(can't give you anything like chapter and verse  on the subject-surprised you are unfamiliar with it by the way;I think it is quite a common unscientific  belief **)

 

**no innuendo intended

Edited December 14, 2017 by geordief

[Dalo]

1 minute ago, geordief said:

I was wondering whether you leant towards the view that we actually change events in the physical world by "thinking about them"

nope. I do love science fiction and Fantasy though. But that is just for fun!

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Dalo said:

I have narrowed the range of my claim. That is I think my good right.

I disagree. The claim of physics is that interference patterns disappear when you have "which path" information. The double-slit is just one example of this happening, and yet it's the only one you will accept as evidence. You have provided no physics reason for this. 

[Dalo]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

I disagree. The claim of physics is that interference patterns disappear when you have "which path" information. The double-slit is just one example of this happening, and yet it's the only one you will accept as evidence. You have provided no physics reason for this. 

It is not the only one I accept as evidence. It is the only one I feel confident enough to talk about and make a claim about.

edit: I will, sooner than later, deal with the matter of interferometers, and how they relate to the claim I have made about double slit experiments. When I am ready.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Dalo

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Dalo said:

I have narrowed the range of my claim. That is I think my good right.

!

Moderator Note

By now it should be obvious that your style of narrowing responses to your claims to only those you understand doesn't make for a productive discussion. Pages and pages of members trying to help you understand explanations you've dismissed because you don't understand them. You stand on your soapbox and declare against the patient help others are trying to give. 

This is a science discussion forum. The discussions are for the purpose of learning. I don't see that happening, and I'll close this down if it doesn't start soon. 

And stop using the excuse that you're not a physicist to reject answers from people who are. That's just trolling.

 

!

Moderator Note

Responses to the modnote, which are off-topic to the thread, have been split off to here. 

 

!

Moderator Note

Dalo, we'd love to help you, but if you continue to make assertions rather than asking questions that could facilitate learning, then you need to go somewhere else. Science. Discussion. Site. What you don't understand you should ask about, rather than making strident guesses.

 

!

Moderator Note

Respond to this note and I'll assume you don't want to try following our rules anymore, and that you've lost interest in the thread. 

 

[Dalo]

44 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

By now it should be obvious that your style of narrowing responses to your claims to only those you understand doesn't make for a productive discussion. Pages and pages of members trying to help you understand explanations you've dismissed because you don't understand them. You stand on your soapbox and declare against the patient help others are trying to give. 

This is a science discussion forum. The discussions are for the purpose of learning. I don't see that happening, and I'll close this down if it doesn't start soon. 

And stop using the excuse that you're not a physicist to reject answers from people who are. That's just trolling.

 

I have been given another warning, and I have no idea why.

I will not change for the reasons given. If you think that it is the wrong attitude, maybe you should tell me so, and I will stop my membership of this forum. You do not need to ban me,  I will simply leave.

[Phi for All]

Just now, Dalo said:

I have been given another warning, and I have no idea why.

I will not change for the reasons given. If you think that it is the wrong attitude, maybe you should tell me so, and I will stop my membership of this forum. You do not need to ban me,  I will simply leave.

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed.