Merged I killed Duality and Uncertainty for a Theory of Everything

[Robin]

The double slits only cause fringes. If there isn't polarizers in place, they will remain waves while traveling.

So, under your theory and there are slits in place, the particle isn't a wave when travelling.

So if there is the double slit in place there could be no interference pattern because the particle has already been swapped to physical/spacetime because of the 'detector' in the path? Right.

So your theory predicts that if there is a detector in place the particle will have no wave properties and there will be no interference pattern.

Right?

 

[Reality Check]

"polarizers at the slits are detectors" ignorance

polarizers at the slits are detectors.

9 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: "polarizers at the slits are detectors" ignorance.

No measurements are made and communicated to humans (your definition!) with polarizers at any slits so they are not detectors.
Ignorance about the delayed-choice quantum eraser which does not have polarizers at double slits. The simple version has no double slits at all ! The experiment of Kim et al. (1999) had a source where the photons first passed 1 at a time thru a double slit. The photons then went thru a single nonlinear optical crystal BBO. That converted each photon into 2 entangled, polarized photons.
ETA: Actually learn about the experiment of Kim et al. - there are 4 detectors clearly marked in the diagram in the article. None of the detectors is a polarizer or a prism or a beam splitter or a coincidence counter.

 

[Robin]

I'm not reinventing the double slit here.

You are completely reinventing it.

For example I cannot see your term "tombstone" anywhere in the standard QM mathematisations of the experiment.

You need to provide your technical definition of that. Do electrons die?

 

[Robin]

What you are saying is that something might be a detector, even if it detects nothing.

But if something detects the particle, then it might not be a detector.

That is pretty much reinventing the experiment right there.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

Yes, that's what it predicts.

I'm reinventing duality and uncertainty. We just haven't been looking at the double slit from the correct angle.

 

[arthwollipot]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that quantum physics is literally made of mathematics. Until you can provide a solid mathematical underpinning for your alternative, it's nothing more than just-so stories.

 

[Robin]

The double slits only cause fringes. If there isn't polarizers in place, they will remain waves while traveling..

Also, they remain waves while travelling whether or not the double slits are in place.

If they were not waves then there would be no interference pattern.

Also, there the presence of the double slits does not guarantee an interference pattern, (which is the whole point of the experiment).

If you have a detector near the double slits, that can tell you which slit it passed through, the interference pattern disappears and you get two "clumps" as you call them.

If your theory calls the double slits by themselves a "detector" then it can't make any distinction between the detector that causes the interference pattern to disappear and the slits themselves and thus cannot explain the double slit experiment.

All the patterns that are detected on the back panel are a function of the wave properties of the electron.

There is no configuration of the experiment (including leaving the double slit screen out altogether) in which the electron does not complete its journey as a wave.

 

[Robin]

Yes, that's what it predicts.

I'm reinventing duality and uncertainty. We just haven't been looking at the double slit from the correct angle.

So you are confirming that your theory predicts that in the double slit experiment there will be no interference pattern if there is just the electron gun, the double slits and the back panel?

That is certainly a bold prediction, but I believe that the experiments have, to date, shown an interference pattern in that case.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

I never said the double slits act as a detector ..its only after you add opposite polarizers to each slit do you have a detector.

 

[Robin]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that quantum physics is literally made of mathematics. Until you can provide a solid mathematical underpinning for your alternative, it's nothing more than just-so stories.

Just-so stories have a certain internal consistency.

 

[Robin]

I never said the double slits act as a detector ..its only after you add opposite polarizers to each slit do you have a detector.

OK, then you should have corrected me sooner.

So if there are opposite polarizers then the particle will be swapped to physical and there should be no pattern on the back panel due to the wave properties of the electron.

Do I have it right now?

 

[pittsburghjoe]

yes, they are swapped before they even start moving.

 

[Robin]

You should know that if there is any kind of detector that allows us to see which slit the particle passed through then the pattern on the back panel is still due to the wave properties of the electron.

 

[Robin]

yes, they are swapped before they even start moving.

So your theory predicts that if there is a detector that allows us to see which slit the particle passed through, then the pattern built up on the back plane would not be due to the wave properties of the electron?

Do I have the prediction right now?

 

[pittsburghjoe]

What? You can't get wave information from clumps.

 

[Robin]

What? You can't get wave information from clumps.

So you don't think that the 'clumps' are due to the wave properties of the electron?

Can you confirm explicitly that your theory predicts that if there is a detector that allows us to see which slit the particle passed through, then the pattern built up on the back plane would not be due to the wave properties of the electron?

 

[pittsburghjoe]

Why wouldn't every theory predict this?

 

[Robin]

Why wouldn't every theory predict this?

Can you confirm explicitly that your theory predicts that if there is a detector that allows us to see which slit the particle passed through, then the pattern built up on the back plane would not be due to the wave properties of the electron?

 

[pittsburghjoe]

yeah, it's ahhh, common sense? I said current quantum experiments support my claims.

 

[Robin]

yeah, it's ahhh, common sense? I said current quantum experiments support my claims.

It is? It does?

Can you point me to the mathematics that describes the shape of the pattern on the back plane when there is a detector showing which slit the particle passes through?

Just a rough outline of it will do.