Jump to content

Help me understand your POV of Duality


scifimath

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, scifimath said:

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

Part of the original photons wavelength is dispersed so you are not seeing the original photon. This is how you can see different colors. 

The original photons wavelength will get absorbed by the material the portions left over will be at different wavelengths and are not in the original photon wave form state but are in new states.

3 minutes ago, scifimath said:

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?

 

That is one of the few accurate statements you have made. However the panel measures the outcome so it in essence observes the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Strange said:

What do you mean by "physical objects"?

Physical objects are quantum objects that have been observed.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That is one of the few accurate statements you have made. However the panel measures the outcome so it in essence observes the outcome.

After the fact!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After considerable effort from us to get you to realize the screen is a form of observation in terms of interference.

Please don't think of particles as corpuscular balls. The only way to understand particle states is through their wave functions.

Anytime you interfere with a wave function you destroy the original state. This results in new particle states being created.

You can literally read entire textbooks in QFT that literally never uses the word particle in the entire text. It is kept as a historic reference simply because people are more familiar with that term than the term states and it gives us a way to isolate different common states that represent the SM particle model.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you've gone back to being childish. Tell me do you think any way your last response makes you look intelligent ? Do you like being thought of as an idiot ?

Try some intelligent well thought out responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, scifimath said:

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

And when you see something, does the photon keep going, as you claim? The eye being the "final panel"

 

 

20 minutes ago, scifimath said:

 After the fact!

Yes, well the nature of time dictates this. All observations are after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Actual scientists haven't considered this yet. It's embarrassing that they haven't noticed it this far.

So claims the one that Doesn't know any QM to begin with you have no idea the versatility of QM or QFT to pass judgement.

There isn't a single physics event I can't use QFT to model

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scifimath said:

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

But it is not observed ("seen") by us until it hits the eye. At which point, it is destroyed; ie. not "in flight". Just like the detector of the interference pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, scifimath said:

Open your eyes. The final panel isn't observation. Duality is dead. The genie has left the bottle.

!

Moderator Note

It's pretty obvious you aren't interested in understanding mainstream duality, and would rather soapbox your unsupported idea. Further, you've developed somewhat of an anti-intellectual strategy that guarantees continued ignorance in these areas. 

Since you've stopped asking questions in favor of preaching, this thread is closed. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scifimath said:

1. The final panel then

Changing the name from "screen" to "panel" doesn't change the fact that there isn't one in the quantum version of the experiment.

Quote

2. Polarizers are used while in flight

So what. They are not what measure where the photons end up.

Quote

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.

But the only observations that are made involved stopping the photon (or electron) to detect it. There are no observations made "in flight."

But as you have invented this fake rule, it is irrelevant anyway.

[Cross-posted with the thread closure. But I am leaving it here, anyway.]

Edited by Strange
x-post
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.