Jump to content

Help me understand your POV of Duality


scifimath

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, scifimath said:

what? It doesn't cause anything ..it's the end of the line. A quantum wave or object is slamming into a spacetime object.

Which is it? a quantum wave, or object

Edited by moth
punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scifimath said:

If the object is small enough to be in the unobserved club. It's going to be a wave.

 

Then why do photons act like particles with respect to the photoelectric effect (among other things)?

Wave/particle duality deals (or originally dealt) with two experiments. One in which photons consistently act like waves, one in which they consistently act like particles. 

Edited by uncool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, scifimath said:

If the object is small enough to be in the unobserved club. It's going to be a wave. Use the wave function and shoot at a detector.

or are you asking how do we observe the unobserved?

 

will you admit detection is a kind of observation?

Edited by moth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets try a thought experiment that has little to do with the two slit experiment. You have an older Cathode ray TV that TV fires a stream of electrons that that are deflected by the EM field to each pixel at different wavelengths these wavelengths give you your color images. The screen itself intercepts these EM waves and gives you an image. Does the screen not interfere with the electron stream ? If not then why do you not get electrocuted ? and why do you see the image which requires photons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, uncool said:

Then why do photons act like particles with respect to the photoelectric effect (among other things)?

Wave/particle duality deals (or originally dealt) with two experiments. One in which photons consistently act like waves, one in which they consistently act like particles. 

Observed light acts like a photon. I want the experiments to consistently act like one or the other, so what's the problem?

19 minutes ago, moth said:

will you admit detection is a kind of observation?

Sure, a person placing a detector is the ritual required to request a physical particle.

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

lets try a thought experiment that has little to do with the two slit experiment. You have an older Cathode ray TV that TV fires a stream of electrons that that are deflected by the EM field to each pixel at different wavelengths these wavelengths give you your color images. The screen itself intercepts these EM waves and gives you an image. Does the screen not interfere with the electron stream ? If not then why do you not get electrocuted ? and why do you see the image which requires photons?

The physical form of the electrons have the data/energy of the wavelengths. I think you want me to be electrocuted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you not answer that straightforward question ? or do you not wish to recognize that the TV screen interferes with the EM stream and the screen emits photons as a result ?

How does  thought experiment equate to me wanting you to be electrocuted are you on some kind of drugs?

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scifimath said:

Sure, a person placing a detector is the ritual required to request a physical particle.

Why does a perfectly good detector fail, by your estimation, just because a funny shadow from a double slit falls on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, scifimath said:

The final screen doesn't count as observation because if it did ..the particle would not ever show fringe.

Of course it is an observation: we observe where the particle hits. 

You wouldn't observe the interference fringes if you didn't observe where the particles hit.

I don't know why you think it "would never show fringe" but that is clearly false.

 

6 hours ago, scifimath said:

So I guess I found the spot you guys don't want to let go of. It most certainly is not bollocks when it comes to what is counted as observation. Observation has to let the particle to continue moving or else it's void.

Who says that is the case? We would be very limited in what we could measure if that were the case. Radar wouldn't work. DVD players wouldn't work. We would be blind and deaf. And so on.

That is a pretty daft definition of observation.

6 hours ago, scifimath said:

Someone was trying to claim the matter wave of an election should hold the results as an atom.

No one ever said that.

6 hours ago, scifimath said:

Fringe is not evidence of physical objects interacting.

What do you mean by "physical objects"?

6 hours ago, scifimath said:

ou are kidding yourself if you see the final screen as observation ..the particle didn't.

Any interaction counts as an observation in quantum theory, so it definitely counters as an observation.

5 hours ago, scifimath said:

I got the memo, the final screen isn't measurement because it's not while the particle is in flight.

Can you provide a source that supports this definition?

5 hours ago, scifimath said:

I just explained it, you don't get to deny it.

We do when your explanation is (a) made up and (b) wrong. 

4 hours ago, scifimath said:

Funny how the facts are on my side

Only the "facts" you have invented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, scifimath said:

The final screen doesn't count as observation because if it did ..the particle would not ever show fringe.

It may be worth highlighting a few things

1. As far as I know, a screen is not used in the quantum version of the experiment as you would not be able to see where a single particle hit. 

2. When making the “which slit” measurement, the particles going through the slit are not observed at all. Certainly not “in flight” because any such observation of a photon, for example, would destroy it. 

3. The observation that is actually made uses exactly the same sort of detector as the “screen” so you can’t say one is an observation and the other isn’t. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, scifimath said:

Observation has to let the particle to continue moving or else it's void.

In literal observation (eyesight) the photon is destroyed. Your claim is tantamount to saying we can't actually see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

In literal observation (eyesight) the photon is destroyed. Your claim is tantamount to saying we can't actually see. 

Nice try, you don't see light unless it bounced off something.

 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

It may be worth highlighting a few things

1. As far as I know, a screen is not used in the quantum version of the experiment as you would not be able to see where a single particle hit. 

2. When making the “which slit” measurement, the particles going through the slit are not observed at all. Certainly not “in flight” because any such observation of a photon, for example, would destroy it. 

3. The observation that is actually made uses exactly the same sort of detector as the “screen” so you can’t say one is an observation and the other isn’t. 

 

1. The final panel then

2. Polarizers are used while in flight

3. Oh, but I can. I discovered it only matters if you test it in flight and the particle can continue moving. There isn't a scenario you can use the final panel to change the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, scifimath said:

 

3. Oh, but I can. I discovered it only matters if you test it in flight and the particle can continue moving. There isn't a scenario you can use the final panel to change the outcome.

Nonsense a beam splitter takes the light wave at frequency and emits two beams each at half the frequency of the original. This forms and entangled photon pair from a single photon. 

 Then using parametric down conversion through a filter you then filter out one polarization state in the Feymann which way experiment versions of the two slit experiment.

Any time you interfere with a photon you alter its original state. The original photon wave function collapses. The portion that reflects is a different photon state. Thus a different photon.

 Altering the frequency is literally how you eliminate the fringes from interfering with the experiment. It is also how you can alter the amount of quanta sent to reduce the photons sent in a beam.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Of course it is an observation: we observe where the particle hits. 

You wouldn't observe the interference fringes if you didn't observe where the particles hit.

I don't know why you think it "would never show fringe" but that is clearly false.

 

Who says that is the case? We would be very limited in what we could measure if that were the case. Radar wouldn't work. DVD players wouldn't work. We would be blind and deaf. And so on.

Measuring the particles on the final panel is an observation after the fact. It doesn't play a role while the particle is in flight.

Why would the final panel be able to change the outcome?

When I said void, I just mean the experiment is over.

 

15 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I can see stars by looking at them, no need to bounce the light off something. What do you mean?

Your eyes are the final panel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.