Stacey C

Double Slit Experiment

Recommended Posts

There’s an explanation that may explain this experiment and solve certain paradoxes (Hardy’s for example). Current belief regarding the double slit experiment is that particles act differently when observed, as if they have a conscious. It’s a fascinating idea but there’s a much simpler explanation. I’d love to hear what others think of it. It does cost a few dollars to download the manuscript , but my mad scientist of a husband had to put a price on it since he’s given all his other ideas away for free and every time others claim them as their own (live and learn). Deleted by mod His theory can be used to explain other paradox’s and refine existing theories. Your feedback is very much welcomed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stacey C said:

There’s an explanation that may explain this experiment and solve certain paradoxes (Hardy’s for example).

Note that any so-called paradoxes in quantum theory are only apparent paradoxes; in other words, they appear paradoxical because Theydon't behave like classical systems. There are not any real paradoxes.

14 minutes ago, Stacey C said:

Current belief regarding the double slit experiment is that particles act differently when observed, as if they have a conscious.

I don't know whose belief that is, but it isn't physics.

14 minutes ago, Stacey C said:

It does cost a few dollars to download the manuscript

This violates at least two rules of the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree thinking particles have a conscious isn’t physics, but when you watch videos on the Double Slit Experiment that’s exactly what is being said. Also, Sorry I didn’t review the rules before posting but I’m just not sure how to get the new theory out there while protecting it. I’d still love to hear what others think of the experiment, with or without downloading our manuscript!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stacey C said:

 Your feedback is very much welcomed!

!

Moderator Note

Advertising is against forum rules, as Strange has noted. Title and link have been removed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the experiment highlights that alternate possibilities aren't just hypothetical. That is to say, things that could happen but don't.... Exist.... 

As far as i can tell, either the observation has a real time effect in a way where it helps to discern which of the multiple positions becomes the "correct" one. Or, far more strangely, the effect of the observation in some way effects the nature of the observed particle, not just after the observation, but also before it. 

Including the observation changes the outcome.

Either the observation is helping select one outcome from multiple that are possible.... or....
The observation is determining the state of the single possibility which must include its state before the point of observation. 

If i'm not wrong, the favourite theory is that the particle has multiple states simultaneously and the observation causes the collapse of the multiple states into a singular state. But i like the idea that the occurrence in the now is in some way entangled with what occurred in the past.

Kind of like saying, "It rained last Tuesday, but all records were changed to say it was sunny. All data was altered to say it was sunny, All memories are changed and everyone is very confident that it was sunny..... Now, it didn't rain last Tuesday"

Does the past determine what state the now is in, Or is the past determined by the information held in the now :) 

Edited by Martyred Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you measure a state that state is no longer in superposition which a is probability term of all possible states. Take a coin, the coin has two states heads or tails. You flip the coin the probability of either heads or tails landing is in superposition. Once you measure the coin you have determined the result it is no longer in a superposition state but a determined state. This can be applied to the polarity of the possible states of the entangled particles either spin up or spin down in the same mannerism as the coin flip. The entanglement event determines the range of possible states along with the particles quantum numbers. By measuring one particle of the pair you automatically know the other particles state.

Another common example is two coloured balls one red, one blue if you place one of each in two separate bags they are in superposition as to the possibility of being either red or blue in a particular bag. Once you open one bag then you know the result in the other bag. The balls are no longer in superposition but are now determined

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

I think the experiment highlights that alternate possibilities aren't just hypothetical. That is to say, things that could happen but don't.... Exist.... 

 

That sounds like Wheeler's "Many Worlds" interpretations: all possible outcomes exist in "different universes".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

I think the experiment highlights that alternate possibilities aren't just hypothetical. That is to say, things that could happen but don't.... Exist.... 

As far as i can tell, either the observation has a real time effect in a way where it helps to discern which of the multiple positions becomes the "correct" one. Or, far more strangely, the effect of the observation in some way effects the nature of the observed particle, not just after the observation, but also before it. 

Including the observation changes the outcome.

Either the observation is helping select one outcome from multiple that are possible.... or....
The observation is determining the state of the single possibility which must include its state before the point of observation. 

If i'm not wrong, the favourite theory is that the particle has multiple states simultaneously and the observation causes the collapse of the multiple states into a singular state. But i like the idea that the occurrence in the now is in some way entangled with what occurred in the past.

Kind of like saying, "It rained last Tuesday, but all records were changed to say it was sunny. All data was altered to say it was sunny, All memories are changed and everyone is very confident that it was sunny..... Now, it didn't rain last Tuesday"

Does the past determine what state the now is in, Or is the past determined by the information held in the now :) 

 

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

That sounds like Wheeler's "Many Worlds" interpretations: all possible outcomes exist in "different universes".

 

More like the goat is tussling with the mathematical theory of probability.

Many (if not most) processes are not single step, they are multistep or multistage.

Thus we should consider combined probabilities

Note 'probabilities' is a more precise and mathematically tractable term than possibilities.

Something like this needs to be considered.

chainprobabilities.thumb.jpg.bd6a9a5684aaf201edbcc5ed7dcae578.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, studiot said:

More like the goat is tussling with the mathematical theory of probability.

Worth noting that Mr Goat has used up his five posts and won't be back till tomorrow....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

Worth noting that Mr Goat has used up his five posts and won't be back till tomorrow....

Thanks.

Did you note, from my attachment, that the uncertainty principle also occurs in classical mechanics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, studiot said:

Did you note, from my attachment, that the uncertainty principle also occurs in classical mechanics?

Hmmm... no. The math is above my head. But as addition (I presume...), I know that the uncertainty principle also exists in classical wave mechanics: see here. E.g. it is responsible for AM broadcasts that the radio station's frequency has a certain bandwidth: would the station send nothing, the frequency would be very precise, but as soon as the signal is modulated, it spreads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eise said:

Hmmm... no. The math is above my head. But as addition (I presume...), I know that the uncertainty principle also exists in classical wave mechanics: see here. E.g. it is responsible for AM broadcasts that the radio station's frequency has a certain bandwidth: would the station send nothing, the frequency would be very precise, but as soon as the signal is modulated, it spreads.

The frequency and time domain representations are Fourier transforms of each other, so it looks just like QM, where momentum and position wave functions are Fourier transforms. (and frequency and time are still Fourier transforms). That's the source of the uncertainty in QM. Any classical system with that relation will have such behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 11:40 AM, Strange said:

That sounds like Wheeler's "Many Worlds" interpretations: all possible outcomes exist in "different universes".

 

If there is anything that cannot be determined in advance. Then there must be a fork with 2 equal outcomes. Where does the outcome reside which doesn't play out here. Not sure i would jump straight to "many worlds" though.

So egg on a roof could fall left or right, It will fall, but which way is not determinable... Therefore both exist as possibility. One of the two possible outcomes occurs... So does the other possibility cease to be a thing? Or was it never a possibility? I think the egg falling the other way is equal to the outcome we ended up with. That is assuming there was ever a chance of it falling that way.

I am however confident that there is no chance. Only a singular outcome. Always the path of least resistance. That said..... if you take a different "starting state" then you could have two identical things which eventually diverge with different paths of least resistance. When we consider multiple things that could happen, we are predicting paths which we believe hold the least resistance.

I think superposition is 5 dimensional.... 3d object stacked through time.... in 3d its singular, in 4d it is there now, it is there now it is there now.... A near infinite stack, like how 2d planes relate to 3d objects....

Something in a superposition.... is like stacked 4d "stuff". Multiple tightly lined up 4d things, like lines to a plane, planes to an object and objects to time. In a 5d environment, multiple 4d things can exist simultaneously. With a 5d perspective.. multiple 4d things can be seen simultaneously..... Sorry... kinda going off on one....

 

On 1/23/2019 at 11:56 AM, studiot said:

 

 

More like the goat is tussling with the mathematical theory of probability.

Many (if not most) processes are not single step, they are multistep or multistage.

Thus we should consider combined probabilities

Note 'probabilities' is a more precise and mathematically tractable term than possibilities.

Something like this needs to be considered.

 

 

Right you are!! I think i use the term possibility more often due to my terrible ability when it comes to probabilistic calculations. But i am quite sure that any calculation of probability only exists due to variables being included.... Variables born from inaccurate measurement.... Maybe there are limits, And certain things will always remain un-predictable. But my gut says no.... I think probabilistic thinking is skippable in favor of seeking more accurate measurements.... Though equally happy to accept that probabilistic thinking will aid in the search for more accurate measurements.....

Sorry if not close enough to topic... 

Photon from supernova goes both ways round the blackhole (both slits). It exists as a wave.... Wave collapses...... It only went round the blackhole one way and so never held the trajectory leading it round the other side of the bh.... Before collapse, there was an occurrence in a place in the past which is provably not there after collapse.... I propose, it either moved to elsewhere upon collapse... Or collapse affected the past.. 

(I will work on forum etiquette, Pointers welcome.... New to this :) )

Edited by Martyred Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Martyred Goat said:

I am however confident that there is no chance. Only a singular outcome. Always the path of least resistance. That said..... if you take a different "starting state" then you could have two identical things which eventually diverge with different paths of least resistance. When we consider multiple things that could happen, we are predicting paths which we believe hold the least resistance.

Experiment disagrees with you. You can prepare identical states and observe probabilistic outcomes.

30 minutes ago, Martyred Goat said:

I think superposition is 5 dimensional.... 3d object stacked through time.... in 3d its singular, in 4d it is there now, it is there now it is there now.... A near infinite stack, like how 2d planes relate to 3d objects....

Why 3D? What if I have a superposition of spin states?

If you're going to propose something different, you need the math to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Experiment disagrees with you. You can prepare identical states and observe probabilistic outcomes.

Then the states were not identical. Identical state = Identical outcome. For me, it would just say that they appear identical due to something limiting our perception of the state.

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why 3D? What if I have a superposition of spin states?

If you're going to propose something different, you need the math to back it up.

Math is not my strong point... But i will try to express it better. 

A line (1d) is similar to a load of (0d) dots in a row.
A plane (2d) is similar to a load of (1d) lines in a row.
An Object (3d) is similar to a load of (2d) planes in a row.
"Time" (4d) Is similar to a load of (3d) objects in a row..

Our "string of occurrence" has a 3d object which persists in a dimension that is not one of the three, It is not just there and gone. It is there, It is there, It is there, It is there, It is there, It is there. Very similar to "in a row". ......In that sense, time can be seen as a spatial dimension..... (remember, i am no "expert")

"Possibilities" (5d) Is similar to multiple "Strings of occurrence" in a row.

Take what does occur as a central line and place all things that do not occur parallel to it. The lines closest to it are the most similar, They had the highest probability of occurring after the single line that did occur. The further you get from the central line.. The less chance there was of that 4d line being the outcome. So you produce a spectrum/plane.... from all these lines.... a single line in this "5d plane" represents all that does occur. The rest of the flat "5d plane" plane is made up from the same substance (other 4d lines) But they did not occur... not here at least... 

......In that sense, Possibilities can be seen as a 5th spatial dimension...... (Remember, I am certainly no expert....) 

Final note...
observation from a 1d line leaves a dot as observable
observation from a 2d plane leaves a 1d line as observable
observation from a 3d space leaves a 2d plane as observable
observation from a 4d time leaves a 3d space as observable

Observation from 5d? Would let us perceive time?.....

I don't speak the language of my own thoughts..... But i do try :)

Edited by Martyred Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

But i am quite sure that any calculation of probability only exists due to variables being included.

 

1 hour ago, Martyred Goat said:

Math is not my strong point.

 

No offence meant but how are these compatible ?

Particularly when you misuse particular mathematical terms with very specific meanings (I think without realising it).

For instance.

1 hour ago, Martyred Goat said:

A line (1d) is similar to a load of (0d) dots in a row.
A plane (2d) is similar to a load of (1d) lines in a row.
An Object (3d) is similar to a load of (2d) planes in a row.
"Time" (4d) Is similar to a load of (3d) objects in a row..

Similarity is such a specific word in mathematics and it does not mean what you have stated there.

Here at ScienceForums there are plenty of members who can help you understand these and I strongly suggest you listen to them as they can be very friendly.

 

I started with the word probability and you are also participating in the thread entitled interpretations of QM.

Note the word interpretations.

Why do you think we have these?

Here is a simple (or is it) question about probability.

What is the meaning (ie how do you interpret) the statement

Event A has a probability of 1?

I will warn you it is not as straightforward as it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martyred Goat said:

Then the states were not identical. Identical state = Identical outcome. For me, it would just say that they appear identical due to something limiting our perception of the state.

Not according to QM. If you e.g. have three spin-1/2 particles, two of them will have to be in an identical spin state, since you don't have any other options. There are only two spin states available.

If you have an alternative theory, let's see it. What predictions does it make and how do we test it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

No offence meant but how are these compatible ?

 

i am quite sure that any calculation of probability only exists due to variables being included.
- Math is not my strong suit

How are they incompatible? 

-----------------------

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Particularly when you misuse particular mathematical terms with very specific meanings (I think without realising it).

For instance.

  1 hour ago, Martyred Goat said:
 

Similarity is such a specific word in mathematics and it does not mean what you have stated there.

I think its clear enough.... 

A line (1d) is like a load of (0d) dots in a row.
A plane (2d) is like a load of (1d) lines in a row.
An Object (3d) is like a load of (2d) planes in a row.
"Time" (4d) Is like a load of (3d) objects in a row.

It is not a definitive equation....

If you fail to understand what i am trying to say. Then ask me to correct wording or elaborate.

--------------------

What is the meaning (ie how do you interpret) the statement

Event A has a probability of 1?

I will warn you it is not as straightforward as it seems.

-

My answer,
Why did you put a question mark after that statement? 

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not according to QM. If you e.g. have three spin-1/2 particles, two of them will have to be in an identical spin state, since you don't have any other options. There are only two spin states available.

If you have an alternative theory, let's see it. What predictions does it make and how do we test it?

 

If you have an alternative theory, let's see it. What predictions does it make and how do we test it?

Double everything, universe A, and universe B. Take half of all A components and seemlessly join them to half of B components. Unplug hardrive B and change program, removing all trace of changes..... Way to test..... Plug hardrive B back in.

I know this may look like a troll answer. But i think by definition... my question is fair (i will word it as a question)

How can 2 things with identical states, Have differing outcomes?

 

Ahhhh . Particle A has an identical state to particle B.... and there is a different outcome.

I may have been thinking about identical particles, in identical positions with identical states. Identical states does not mean identical "other stuff" 

Have i corrected myself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Martyred Goat said:

 If you have an alternative theory, let's see it. What predictions does it make and how do we test it?

Double everything, universe A, and universe B. Take half of all A components and seemlessly join them to half of B components. Unplug hardrive B and change program, removing all trace of changes..... Way to test..... Plug hardrive B back in.

I know this may look like a troll answer. But i think by definition... my question is fair (i will word it as a question)

How can 2 things with identical states, Have differing outcomes?

Because QM is probabilistic.

42 minutes ago, Martyred Goat said:

Ahhhh . Particle A has an identical state to particle B.... and there is a different outcome.

I may have been thinking about identical particles, in identical positions with identical states. Identical states does not mean identical "other stuff" 

Have i corrected myself?

I'm not sure. The "other stuff" has no effect on the final result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because QM is probabilistic.

Ahh, brainwave. And this will likely sound silly... QM is not the thing QM is attempting to describe. It is a label for the language, Not a label for the thing the language is used to talk about..... 

I don't think "IT" is probabilistic.... I almost argued against your statement. But you have said QM is probabilistic..... I think you are probably right lol..... 

I have a lot to learn, Ty for indulging me :) 

......As for the second bit. Regardless of the experiment. Regardless of the results, there is always the potential for a second configuration (at least) which appears identical to all current means of measurement and observation......

QM may be probabilistic, Reality is not. 

Probability is the math of guessing. There is no chance... 

Sorry, but to me its quite simple. Unless my definition of probability is miles off.... It is clever guesswork, And any use of it in literal theory.... is a patch to fill in gaps. It can help people to understand something. But it always has the potential to be wrong. And therefore never has the potential to define (Short of certainty)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Martyred Goat said:

QM may be probabilistic, Reality is not. 

No. See also: Bell's Theorem.

19 minutes ago, Martyred Goat said:

Sorry, but to me its quite simple.

And wrong.

But don't worry. Even Einstein never accepted it. So anyone can be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Martyred Goat said:

Ahh, brainwave. And this will likely sound silly... QM is not the thing QM is attempting to describe. It is a label for the language, Not a label for the thing the language is used to talk about..... 

I don't think "IT" is probabilistic.... I almost argued against your statement. But you have said QM is probabilistic..... I think you are probably right lol..... 

I have a lot to learn, Ty for indulging me :) 

......As for the second bit. Regardless of the experiment. Regardless of the results, there is always the potential for a second configuration (at least) which appears identical to all current means of measurement and observation......

QM may be probabilistic, Reality is not. 

 

Reality behaves in a way that we can't tell that it's not. QM is our best description of that behavior (under the conditions where QM is the best model), and it is probabilistic. There have been tests that confirm such "not probabilistic" behavior is not present. (Bell tests of hidden variables)

IOW, you will be very hard-pressed to support your claim. And a bald assertion is far from satisfactory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

What is the meaning (ie how do you interpret) the statement

Event A has a probability of 1?

I will warn you it is not as straightforward as it seems.

-

My answer,
Why did you put a question mark after that statement? 

I haven't much time now so I will just answer this one and offer some encouragement.

These lines are part of the same sentence so the question  mark goes at the end.

Perhaps I should have put better punctuation. Sorry.

Try this

What is the meaning (ie how do you interpret) of the statement:

"Event A has a probability of 1"?

 

I think you have a better thought capacity than you give yourself credit for, even in maths.

You just need to find what others have done before you.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Reality behaves in a way that we can't tell that it's not. QM is our best description of that behavior (under the conditions where QM is the best model), and it is probabilistic. There have been tests that confirm such "not probabilistic" behavior is not present. (Bell tests of hidden variables)

IOW, you will be very hard-pressed to support your claim. And a bald assertion is far from satisfactory.

 

I get that, I wish i had a grasp of calculus and a load of neat machines..... or even some polarisation filters!! (See if you can guess what i've been looking up)

I think faster than light interaction is a far more likely explanation than a probabilistic nature.... Gimme 10 years and i'll try and say why :/ 

 

 

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

What is the meaning (ie how do you interpret) of the statement:

"Event A has a probability of 1"?

 

I see it as a statement. aka "Event A will occur" :)

 

Edited by Martyred Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Martyred Goat said:

 

I think faster than light interaction is a far more likely explanation than a probabilistic nature.

I have a very high confidence that the possibility of a faster than light interaction is not the correct answer. Let me explain a few details not mentioned thus far. First off the entangled particles have already interacted with each other prior to being measured. They did so the instance they became entangled. This entanglement determines the probability of possible outcomes which is a correlation function ( another statistical term.) In the case of spin 1/2 particles such as electrons there is only two possible states spin up or spin down. However there is also a process called conservation of isospin and charge that is involved ( though all conservation laws apply in any particle interaction). All conservation laws must be obeyed on any particle interaction.

 This determines that the entangled pairs must be of opposite polarity. So when you measure one you automatically know the result of the other. The particles do not need to communicate or have any cause and effect at the time of the measurement. The initial interaction when they initially got entangled is sufficient. The other probability functions relate to how often a stream of entangled particles on multiple sampling will align with a given detector. So different detector apparatus will have their own probabilities according to the individual experiment set up.

Once again no FTL is required or needed. Neither is a hidden variable required to make accurate probability predictions

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now