nobodyshome Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) I think to start off I should introduce myself and the reason why I'm here, the proceed to explain as best I can what my brain decided to think off.My names Ryan, I'm 18, living in the UK and attending College studying Software Development. I have been interested for a very long time in Quantum Physics after studying a little in school and later watching many video's. After time away I always seem to find a new video, article or something related that brings me back to looking at it again. And well 2 days ago I got drawn back in again. I was on youtube watching some technology video's and saw a quantum physics video. After about 20-30 minutes it finished talking about dark matter then back to the double split experiment. This is where my brain just decided it had an idea and wanted to find out more. Looking around I found nothing related or close to what I'm thinking, and after finding here I'm hoping you guys could help. It may be a total waste of time for which I apologies, or it may be something. Anyway no matter the outcome, my curiosity will be fueled. P.S I'm not a physicist or anything close but I understand the some of the basics of what I'm talking about below. After reading and trying to understand what I'm trying to get across, any discussion whether it is ripping it apart, or pointing me in the right direction, all is welcome.Firstly I want to start with, my main curiosity or idea is mainly between darkmatter(or something else - you'll understand soon)-Double Split Experiment-Entanglement-Gravity(Matter/spacetime), and ill try to remember to talk about each aspect. Through my short time living on Earth one thing to me has always remained constant, that everything has an opposite, somethings even having a middle point in some cases (Gas - {Liquid} - Solid)etc. The one thing I just can't wrap my head around is that Gravity, doesn't there's nothing even close apart from Dark Matter. This is where the double split comes in, it shows that when a photon(subatomic particle) is shot through 2 slits it makes a predictable pattern but only when it's observe. When it's not observed it makes an interference pattern.Okay, my thought is that sub-atomic Particles are not particles at all.....there A form of energy or force, maybe dark matter or something else(Going to refer to this as X so it's easier to follow along) that we might not understand yet. If you consider it like Gravity effects matter but Dark "Matter" effects X or energy, gravity bends space but Dark Matter stretches time. So when the photon is fired its a wave, but the minute light and the energy it contains is added it converts to mass, which then acts like mass and hits the detection area and causes a pattern like it was mass. This could be tested by a detection area on double slit aswell as the back wall, by firing the electron it should leave the slits covered, then by observing the after it has gone through and if you see the back has followed the pattern like a particle it would show a clear idea that it was a wave to mass. IF the double split detection area was not covered at all after multiple tries, but the back was a particle pattern(not interference) then it shows that the X can convert back and forth between itself and matter when being observed, which means that X lost when it hits the double split must also then be included back into the mass after it has gone through. This is where I think space and time come in, when we consider gravity/mass, it can't go faster than light. But maybe X can go faster than light, because light is energy after all. Think of mass traveling at 10mph and light at 20mph, the wave of X going towards the split is 30mph, when it's "observed" with/by light its slowed to 10mph (X - Light = mass) causing it's state to change to mass. Gravity and X are opposites and in most things opposites cancel each other out. Quantum Entanglement could be explained by X being faster than light too, by observing one X causes the other to be the opposite.There are probably a metric ton of holes in this that I can't see as is currently 5AM when I started typing this up. To the professionals, or even people who are intelligent enough that then read the first line........don't scold me, teach me. Id rather be shot down with explanations to learn than nothing at all. One of the many video's i found on Quantum Split etc, main one i refered back to most of the time: P.S I have probably missed a few things that hold my idea all together, i'm positive someone will bring it up and will give me the chance to explain it. Thanks in advance. Whether right or wrong, even if i look a fool for posting such nonsense, an answer to me means more to me. Edit-1: Feel free to ask questions if i should need to explain anything more. Edited February 6, 2015 by nobodyshome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 So when the photon is fired its a wave, but the minute light, another energy is added it converts to mass, which then acts like mass and hits the detection area and causes a pattern like it was mass. A photon is light, so I'm not sure what "light, another energy is added" means. And photons have no mass. This could be tested by a detection area on double slit aswell as the back wall, by firing the electron it should leave the slits covered, then by observing the after it has gone through and if you see the back has followed the pattern like a particle it would show a clear idea that it was a wave to mass. I couldn't really follow your description here. Are you suggesting putting a detector at the slits as well as at the screen? If so, that has been done in various ways. The only way of detecting a photon is to absorb it so if you try and detect the photon at the slit you won't get any photons hitting the screen. There are indirect ways of detecting which slit a photon went through (using entangled pairs). If you do this, then there is no interference pattern formed. (As expected from theory.) What exactly are you predicting would be different from the existing experiments when you detect the photon at the slits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) My names Ryan, I'm 18, I have been interested for a very long time in Quantum Physics ......and after finding here I'm hoping you guys could help. .... Firstly I want to start with, my main curiosity .... The one thing I just can't wrap my head around is that Gravity, "...... Okay, my thought is ..........opposites and in most things opposites ....is currently 5AM when I started typing this up...... .. .Keep going Ryan ! If you manage to find the opposite to gravity , you will have hit the jackpot . Come and see me , I am down in Devon . We will become rich , because when you crack the opposite to gravity , we leave the Earth surface and go into the third dimension like the Birds . Catch you a bit later . Mike Edited February 6, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobodyshome Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) A photon is light, so I'm not sure what "light, another energy is added" means. And photons have no mass. I couldn't really follow your description here. Are you suggesting putting a detector at the slits as well as at the screen? If so, that has been done in various ways. The only way of detecting a photon is to absorb it so if you try and detect the photon at the slit you won't get any photons hitting the screen. There are indirect ways of detecting which slit a photon went through (using entangled pairs). If you do this, then there is no interference pattern formed. (As expected from theory.) What exactly are you predicting would be different from the existing experiments when you detect the photon at the slits? Sorry, wish i knew how to explain it better. I was explain it as in light and the energy it contains is what i meant. On the split thing, to determin that its a wave of energy before it goes through, then observing it to produce the particle pattern means it has 2 states and that adding light(energy) it changed properties. To test this, if you think of a paint ball gun, when you shoot the paintball, lets say the minute it exits the barrel it explodes, this splatter then goes all over the Plate and also some through the split, then after you observe the photon, and when it hits the back like a particle rather than a interference wave but has still left the paint on the panel, you know that it was this energy or force that i refer to as X till you observed it with light. Hope that makes sense. . . .Keep going Ryan ! If you manage to find the opposite to gravity , you will have hit the jackpot . Come and see me , I am down in Devon . We will become rich , because when you crack the opposite to gravity , we leave the Earth surface and go into the third dimension like the Birds . Catch you a bit later . Mike I wish i could figure it out, but its an idea and even if it turns out true i have no where near the expertise to acctually prove it with equations/test's etc! Edited February 6, 2015 by nobodyshome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) I wish i could figure it out, but its an idea and even if it turns out true i have no where near the expertise to acctually prove it with equations/test's etc!Well I have tried , and better tried to crack this gravity opposite . Still trying . As a professor once said to me . He is dead now . " the first person to put a device on the table , and it goes skyward ,based on this antigravity principle , is the one that has proved it . " Keep going ,we need it . Speak again later . See currently adjacent thread about " new antigravity mass transport system " Link to thread : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77276-possibility-for-mass-transport-system-could-take-us-up-a-gear/ Mike Edited February 6, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobodyshome Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Would be great if people could pick this apart. I wish i had the expertise to put this it to mathematical form, something i hope i can work on given time. Until then can anyone break this down and see if this is genuine idea that could be tested at certain parts?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 On the split thing, to determin that its a wave of energy before it goes through, then observing it to produce the particle pattern means it has 2 states and that adding light(energy) it changed properties. I don't know where the "adding light" is supposed to happen. To test this, if you think of a paint ball gun, when you shoot the paintball, lets say the minute it exits the barrel it explodes, this splatter then goes all over the Plate and also some through the split, then after you observe the photon, and when it hits the back like a particle rather than a interference wave but has still left the paint on the panel, you know that it was this energy or force that i refer to as X till you observed it with light. Hope that makes sense. The thing is, the photon (1) either splatters on the screen with the slits (and stops there) OR it goes through the slits and hits the screen/detector at the back. (1) Or electron. Or whatever - you can do this with anything - even whole molecules. What does your explanation add that the current (very detailed and accurate) theory doesn't have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Would be great if people could pick this apart. Isn't this what Strange is trying to do? Asking basic questions on terminology use will help strengthen the foundation of your idea so you don't try to build on shaky data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobodyshome Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Isn't this what Strange is trying to do? Asking basic questions on terminology use will help strengthen the foundation of your idea so you don't try to build on shaky data. Hi, Phi for All, I actually replied to him in the post in between mike's and am about to reply to his below this I don't know where the "adding light" is supposed to happen. The thing is, the photon (1) either splatters on the screen with the slits (and stops there) OR it goes through the slits and hits the screen/detector at the back. (1) Or electron. Or whatever - you can do this with anything - even whole molecules. What does your explanation add that the current (very detailed and accurate) theory doesn't have? The adding light bit is observing, to detect these particles/waves X as im refering to in my idea it requires light to see where it is, thats how we are detecing it in the experiments i have seen. This is where my idea isn't about it being a particle, as in mass. It's more like a wave of energy or force(im not sure how to describe it), what im suggesting is that when light is introducted(a photon) which is made of energy not matter, it changes this wave of energy that is the electron(for example) into a mass form(the ball). What i'm asking in a way is, is it possible to test if it's a wave of energy rather than a probability wave of where a single particle is going to be. I suggested a method above and was wondering if that's a way to test it. Also a side note, i thought it was only subatomic particles that acted this way. Particles produce the 2 lined pattern but Subatomic particles is what causes the interference one. So how would a molecule work? Edited February 6, 2015 by nobodyshome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 don't scold me, teach me. Id rather be shot down with explanations to learn than nothing at all. Buy double slit set up ($5.5): http://www.eduvis.pl/oferta/fizyka-pomoce-dydaktyczne/optyka/zestaw-nr-9-do-badania-interferencji-swiatla-doswiadczenie-younga-detail and red, green, blue lasers at ebay. You should first see how it looks in the real world, prior making any conjecture.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobodyshome Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Buy double slit set up ($5.5): http://www.eduvis.pl/oferta/fizyka-pomoce-dydaktyczne/optyka/zestaw-nr-9-do-badania-interferencji-swiatla-doswiadczenie-younga-detail and red, green, blue lasers at ebay. You should first see how it looks in the real world, prior making any conjecture.. Thanks, i have done test's with a red laser and cut in a plastic sheet and i understand what's happening. My idea from what i see still supports the outcome and results now, but provides more insight into what happens, if it's possible to test it. Testing it id need a really high end kit i'm sure. Edited February 6, 2015 by nobodyshome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 The adding light bit is observing, to detect these particles/waves X as im refering to in my idea it requires light to see where it is, thats how we are detecing it in the experiments i have seen. A photon or electron is not "seen" or detected with light. They are detected when they hit a detector; this could be a phosphor screen or a photodetector or similar. You can't see photons with light; they are light. This is where my idea isn't about it being a particle, as in mass. Photons don't have mass. Electrons do. They both behave the same in the double slit experiment. As do even larger objects. It's more like a wave of energy or force(im not sure how to describe it), what im suggesting is that when light is introducted(a photon) which is made of energy not matter, it changes this wave of energy that is the electron(for example) into a mass form(the ball). An electron always has mass. And if you use electrons in a double slit experiment, you don't need any light or photons. What i'm asking in a way is, is it possible to test if it's a wave of energy rather than a probability wave of where a single particle is going to be. I suggested a method above and was wondering if that's a way to test it. So what you might be thinking of is "pilot wave theory"; which suggests there is a real wave which determines which way the particle will go. As far as I know, there is now way of testing this, so it seems to be just another interpretation (way of explaining) of the theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave Also a side note, i thought it was only subatomic particles that acted this way. Particles produce the 2 lined pattern but Subatomic particles is what causes the interference one. So how would a molecule work? http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1999/oct/15/wave-particle-duality-seen-in-carbon-60-molecules https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Thanks, i have done test's with a red laser and cut in a plastic sheet and i understand what's happening. No, you don't. These ready setups have distance between two slits 0.06 mm (60 um), and 0.1 mm (100 um). Using these setups, you learn math equations which will lead to observed effect. Run one laser with them projecting on white wall, with scale attached, with well-known distance from slits to wall. Measure distances between created dots on wall. etc. etc. Repeat with other laser color. Repeat with other slit setup (different wideness of slit and offset between them). Compare all cases. etc. etc. It's heavy math work. I bet you never did this. Edited February 6, 2015 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobodyshome Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) No, you don't. These ready setups have distance between two slits 0.06 mm (60 um), and 0.1 mm (100 um). Using these setups, you learn math equations which will lead to observed effect. Run one laser with them projecting on white wall, with scale attached, with well-known distance from slits to wall. Measure distances between created dots on wall. etc. etc. Repeat with other laser color. Repeat with other slit setup (different wideness of slit and offset between them). Compare all cases. etc. etc. It's heavy math work. I bet you never did this. Nope, i have never done the math side at all apart from look at what the equations are. Ill look into it! Thanks. A photon or electron is not "seen" or detected with light. They are detected when they hit a detector; this could be a phosphor screen or a photodetector or similar. You can't see photons with light; they are light. Photons don't have mass. Electrons do. They both behave the same in the double slit experiment. As do even larger objects. An electron always has mass. And if you use electrons in a double slit experiment, you don't need any light or photons. So what you might be thinking of is "pilot wave theory"; which suggests there is a real wave which determines which way the particle will go. As far as I know, there is now way of testing this, so it seems to be just another interpretation (way of explaining) of the theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1999/oct/15/wave-particle-duality-seen-in-carbon-60-molecules https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b Okay, i see your 3 points. That makes total sense now!! Wow okay so yeah pilot wave explains most of what i thought. Thanks for the links! The more you know, guess i better go research these area's and see if anything still hold's up at all! Thanks for all the help people's! ~nobodyshome ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ill throw it in here before opening another thread. Does changing the Split experiment to up or down instead of verticle effect the results? Edited February 6, 2015 by nobodyshome 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Ill throw it in here before opening another thread. Does changing the Split experiment to up or down instead of verticle effect the results? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now