• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged I killed Duality and Uncertainty for a Theory of Everything

pittsburghjoe said:
Well, if you agreed with anything else I've had to say in this thread, you'd go with my interpretation.
Click to expand...
I have been asking questions in order to clarify what you are saying, as have others.

You have been avoiding answering these until your poorly stated original OP is reinstated.

Until you are able to explain what you are saying then no-one here is in a position to agree or disagree.
 
pittsburghjoe said:
Just go with the opposite of whatever he says
Click to expand...
This is pretty much a frank admission that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Someone who did know would be able to be specific about what was wrong and why it was wrong.

People who don't know have to resort to vague evasive statements like the above.
 
 
Last edited:
I've already explained that the final panel never counts as quantum observation. The particles state while travailing will not change.

The entangled particle only looks to be sending messages to the past because the particle is actually one object. It's notifying itself to be a particle or a wave while it's moving.
 
Quantum observation non-science - an observation at any place is an observation

pittsburghjoe said:
I've already explained that the final panel never counts as quantum observation.
Click to expand...
9 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Quantum observation non-science - an observation at any place is an observation!

We can detect a particle at any stage in a double slit experiment and that is an observation. Detecting a particle leaving the source is an observation. Detecting which slit a particle goes through is an observation. Detecting a particle at the screen is an observation. We count the detections at the screen as observations because we observe the particles at the screen :jaw-dropp!
 
The mathematics of the double-slit experiment depend upon the final panel being an observation.

If you are saying that the final panel is not an observation in your theory, please supply your alternative mathematical treatment of the experiment.
 
The the quantum object will not swap from waves to physical based on the final screen. What matters is detectors that are able to detect and allow the particle to continue past it.
 
pittsburghjoe said:
The the quantum object will not swap from waves to physical based on the final screen. What matters is detectors that are able to detect and allow the particle to continue past it.
Click to expand...
Be specific. If the final screen is not a detector in your theory, what is a detector in your theory?

What is your definition of "detector" under which the panel which detects the final position of the electron is not a detector?
 
Last edited:
So if I left out the screen with the double slit and just had an electron emitter and a back panel, I fire the electron and see a little spot light up on the back panel.

Under your theory I have not detected the particle, right?

Under your theory that particle remains completely undetected, right?
 
A detector is something that can tell a human that a particle passed by. Spacetime is not assigned to the particle if it knows spacetime is never involved while traveling. That last panel is a tombstone.
 
An ignorant "entangled particle" and a signaling fantasy

pittsburghjoe said:
The entangled particle only looks to be sending messages to the past because the particle is actually one object. It's notifying itself to be a particle or a wave while it's moving.
Click to expand...
9 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: An ignorant "entangled particle" and a signaling fantasy.

The point of entangled particles (plural) is that there has to be other particles for the quantum entanglement! It is two particles with their states entangled. A measurement on one affects the state of the other. A "message travelling to the past" fantasy would be between the particles.

Entangled particles are used to get the eraser part of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. Entanglement is not needed for Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. BTW: The executions of Wheeler's delayed choice experiment are set up so that it is physically impossible for signals to affect the choice.
Jacques, Vincent; et al. (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science. 315 (5814): 966–968. The detector is placed far enough away from the source and delayed decision apparatus that they are space-like separated (no relativistic signal can pass between them).
Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice by Xiao-song Ma, et. al (my emphasis added)
 
pittsburghjoe said:
A detector is something that can tell a human that a particle passed by. Spacetime is not assigned to the particle if it knows spacetime is never involved while traveling. That last panel is a tombstone.
Click to expand...
As I said, be specific. In the double-slit experiment, what counts as a detector?

Also, if I just have an electron emitter and a back panel and nothing in between, I fire the electron and see a spot light up on the back panel, then, under your theory that particle has remained entirely undetected, yes?
 
polarizers at the slits are detectors.

You will just get a clump if there isn't a double slit. The waves need the slit in order to interfere with each other.
 
Partial ignorance about a detector in physics

pittsburghjoe said:
A detector is something that can tell a human that a particle passed by.
Click to expand...
9 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Partial ignorance about a detector in physics.

Detectors in physics do not just detect things "passing by". Many stop particles. The obvious examples are human eyes. For thousands of years we have been using our eyes as detectors that stop light. We never see light just passing by us. The invention of photography gave us detectors that tell humans when particles have been stopped.

Detectors that tell humans when particles have passed by measure changes caused by those particles in the detector. For example, measure a change in magnetic field when a charged particle passes by.
 
pittsburghjoe said:
polarizers at the slits are detectors.

You will just get a clump if there isn't a double slit. The waves need the slit in order to interfere with each other.
Click to expand...
So if you have no back panel, only the slits then the particle has been detected, under your theory?

But if you have a back panel but no slits, then the particle is undetected, under your theory?

Do I have that right?
 
The double slits only cause fringes. If there isn't polarizers in place, they will remain waves while traveling.

A backpanel with no slits means they were undetected, yes. they were waves while traveling.
 
pittsburghjoe said:
The double slits only cause fringes. If there isn't polarizers in place, they will remain waves while traveling.

A backpanel with no slits means they were undetected, yes. they were waves while traveling.
Click to expand...
So the particle is undetected when we can observe a spacetime final location for the particle?

And it is detected if we can assign no spacetime location to it (ie the slits but no back panel)?

(Under your theory).
 
I'm not reinventing the double slit here. All I'm saying is that the tombstone doesn't count towards the decision of the particle being a wave or physical while in flight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom