Why are we so certain EM packets travel physically as waves when not being measured? What if there is an invisible 3d lattice throughout the universe that an EM packet has to traverse when not being observed? When a measurement is made, the lattice disappears or morphs out of the way.

 

If this turned out to be true, it would suggest a bubble of space-time, engulfing the experiment, is what would be changing dependent on a detector being used.

 

I would be curious of multiple double slit experiments being conducted next to each other to see if overlapping bubbles cause anything weird in the results.

Edited December 25, 20169 yr by pittsburghjoe

Why are we so certain EM packets travel physically as waves when not being measured?

We have models and we tested them and they work exceedingly well.

 

If you have an alternative model, you have to explain what tests can be done to see that it works. How do you test for an invisible lattice that disappears during measurement?

Criss-cross multiple double slit experiment paths. One of the multiple tests using a detector at the slits in an attempt to mix a lattice environment with an observed one.

Criss-cross multiple double slit experiment paths. One of the multiple tests using a detector at the slits in an attempt to mix a lattice environment with an observed one.

How does that demonstrate your model and refute the accepted one?

Depends on what the results end up being. Has a criss-cross been done before?

As you've been told, scientists dunt just randomly speculate.

 

A scientist would make a mathematical model and predict numerically the results.

 

You're just making wild ass guesses.

 

This isn't science.

I'm never going to get my Nobel peace prize with that kind of talk.

I'm never going to get my Nobel peace prize with that kind of talk.

 

 

You have a lot more chance of getting the Peace Prize than one in Physics.

I'm never going to get my Nobel peace prize with that kind of talk.

That would require you doing some science. Which means maths.

Depends on what the results end up being. Has a criss-cross been done before?

You need to make a prediction of what the results should be. Without that this is just guessing.

 

You can also expend the effort to see what experiments have been done.

I'm never going to get my Nobel peace prize with that kind of talk.

What does the Nobel peace prize have to do with this?

The results will be neither clumps or fringes (on average) ..the particle might not even hit the final panel.

 

I would want one test to fire and another to fire while the first particle is still in motion. Make the experiment large enough that both particles can be in the air and not be considered effecting each others "waves".

 

Regardless of my theory, this experiment should be conducted.

Regardless of my theory, this experiment should be conducted.

 

 

No one is going to perform an experiment based on random guesses.

 

 

The results will be neither clumps or fringes (on average) ..the particle might not even hit the final panel.

 

But if they were, you would need to provide something better than that: quantitive predictions.

You guys want me to apply math to something that doesn't follow the rules. Shoot me for having an educated* guess that might show us all something new.

 

 

 

*I can see you smirking

You guys want me to apply math to something that doesn't follow the rules.

 

 

If it doesn't follow rules, then it isn't science.

Superposition isn't science? Please share in my glory and set this criss-cross experiment up.

Superposition isn't science?

 

 

Who said that?

Note that superposition comes from the math ("rules") of quantum theory and was, as far as I know, predicted before it was observed experimentally.

You guys want me to apply math to something that doesn't follow the rules. Shoot me for having an educated* guess that might show us all something new.

 

You need to define what the new rule is.

The new rule is that EM waves are not waves because they want to be. They take the shape that a 3D lattice allows when not being measured.

That's not a quantitative rule. Reread the posts above.

The new rule is that EM waves are not waves because they want to be. They take the shape that a 3D lattice allows when not being measured.

Rule = equation(s)

 

Here, please try the experiment now.

 

 

How is this derived?

I used quantum randomness to decide what characters/symbols to write.

Bazinga!

 

Why would I need a different equation than one that is already established? Can I just have the closest one to the experiment I'm speaking of and mod in the bit about a lattice?

But that would be consistent with what we already know, i.e. your experiment would show nothing new.

Why would I need a different equation than one that is already established?

 

 

But you said:

 

You guys want me to apply math to something that doesn't follow the rules.

 

 

So either it follows the existing rules or it doesn't follow rules. Which is it?