explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[Bishadi]

If you're referring to me, I was simply providing one reason why we keep asking you for specific predictions--because nearly all experiments encounter variations caused by events other than that which is being tested for. Scientists call those "noise". Without specific predictions you fall into the realm of pseudoscience (the only reason ghost hunters exist is because they ignore the difference between signal and noise). "Noise" here does NOT mean "stuff you hear"; it's being used in its statistical meaning.

if you do not comprehend, that a single wavelength emission (monochrom) light and 2 different materials of mass, and one mass renders one color and the other another; that it is the mass doing it (point blank)

then most everything you are posting is noise!


the thread is dead at this point because any who have read it already know the outcome.

you might as well just relax and find someone else who will play with you

 

[Bishadi]

No it's NOT. Detectors are chosen to match the experimenters purpose (i.e. CMT for a thermal imager, photo-multipliers for low-light intensities, phosphor screens to produce visual images from non-visible phenomenon). There is NO relationship to 'mass'.

For instance if the two-slit diffration experiment is carried out with diffraction image projected onto a sheet of paper the observer will see that pattern. If the paper is substituted with a white painted block of lead in exactly the same position the observer will still see EXACTLY the same diffraction pattern. The detector (the observers eyes) have not changed. The source and slits have not changed. The only thing changed is the surface the image is projected onto, and there is NO CHANGE in that image.

what is white?

what elements? (mass)

why cover the lead with white?

try gold Au and lead with a monochrom light, then measure the recieved light from the gold/lead emission........... is the wavelength different?


basic

 

[Mikemcc]

if you do not comprehend, that a single wavelength emission (monochrom) light and 2 different materials of mass, and one mass renders one color and the other another; that it is the mass doing it (point blank)

then most everything you are posting is noise!


the thread is dead at this point because any who have read it already know the outcome.

you might as well just relax and find someone else who will play with you

You are using the word mass incorrectly (a pretty cardinal sin in a physics topic). The Raman shifting that you are describing is a feature of the molecular structure of each substance, not mass (as in the amount of matter).

 

[Mikemcc]

what is white?

what elements? (mass)

why cover the lead with white?

try gold Au and lead with a monochrom light, then measure the recieved light from the gold/lead emission........... is the wavelength different?


basic

But then you have absorbtion because the surfaces you are projecting onto are differently coloured. Why would you think that the results are comparable when you are changing the way the expeiment is conducted? It's not mass you're looking at, its colouration of the target substance!

 

[Bishadi]

But then you have absorbtion because the surfaces you are projecting onto are differently coloured. Why would you think that the results are comparable when you are changing the way the expeiment is conducted?

i changed nothing but to remain causal to the parameters.

i was PROVIDING a method to prove that the particle wave hypothesis is bunk just by changing the detector mass to share that it is not the monochrom light rendering the particle of the results but the mass (elemental structure/molecules/matter) is

you have missed the whole purpose (evidence) of the double slit experiment

It's not mass you're looking at, its colouration of the target substance!

mass is not of color, the color comes from the emission of em, from the structure to your eye

your posts are redundant and they are making you look real foolish


step away from the keyboard

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That is what is nice about the experiment; any difference shares fact to the postulate.

your eyes to pop out!

but i doubt an apology is even possible.
first to last, then last to first; be certain of an outcome!

Global!

Affecting all branches of science and understanding.

After it sets in the wide scope is what the new comprehension enables, The narrow band is to be extinct because they could not evolve to comprehend what it is like 'out of the cave'.

I tink da lite b 2 brite!

It would be too much to hope that you'd quantify your expected result, so I merely asked you to describe it, but you respond with drivel.

A simple "I haven't a clue - I'm just making it up" would have done.

 

[Mikemcc]

...
your posts are redundant and they are making you look real foolish


step away from the keyboard

 

[Mikemcc]

i changed nothing but to remain causal to the parameters.

i was PROVIDING a method to prove that the particle wave hypothesis is bunk just by changing the detector mass to share that it is not the monochrom light rendering the particle of the results but the mass (elemental structure/molecules/matter) is

you have missed the whole purpose (evidence) of the double slit experiment




mass is not of color, the color comes from the emission of em, from the structure to your eye

your posts are redundant and they are making you look real foolish


step away from the keyboard

You aren't changing the detectors mass, the observers eyes remain the same. You are changing the targets colour and then being all surprised that the projected images colour changed! You are telling us the obvious and then expecting us to believe that it somehow debunks particle duality.

 

[Emet]

the duality is busted!

My favorite dish is custard!

My spectroscope's all rusted?

Some posters can't be trusted
They are so maladjusted
But when I get disgusted
I read some stuff that's... really, really interesting.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So how does light from a monochromatic source change frequency (colour) without Raman filtering, which requires absorbtion and re-emission? Raman filters are rather conspicuously absent from your experiment description

It's a good point. Raman scattering can't be the effect Bishadi's expecting us to look for as he didn't specify Raman-active screen materials, and even in such materials it only affects one in ten million photons, so we would never spot it in the experiment as described.

 

[John Jones]

i changed nothing but to remain causal to the parameters.

i was PROVIDING a method to prove that the particle wave hypothesis is bunk just by changing the detector mass to share that it is not the monochrom light rendering the particle of the results but the mass (elemental structure/molecules/matter) is

you have missed the whole purpose (evidence) of the double slit experiment




mass is not of color, the color comes from the emission of em, from the structure to your eye

your posts are redundant and they are making you look real foolish

step away from the keyboard

That's some sage advice! I have no problem recommending the same to you.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Wave Particle Duality II

monochrom light double slit, detector/recieving plate ... send light thru slits to detector, record observations with different mass of the detector, different patterns.

Have you done this?

If yes, then what materials & wavelength(s) did you use and what results did you observe?

If no, then why not?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Have you done this?

If yes, then what materials & wavelength(s) did you use and what results did you observe?

If no, then why not?

He already stated he has never done the experiment. Hasn't explained why not, though, nor why he's so sure there will be an effect other than hinting that we ought to see that it's obviously the case.

 

[Bishadi]

He already stated he has never done the experiment. Hasn't explained why not, though, nor why he's so sure there will be an effect other than hinting that we ought to see that it's obviously the case.

yo Jack,

why not run the experiment yourself and prove me wrong?

I mean, if you could actually provide evidence, versus all these rhetorical rants, then you could send me to the doghouse, and have all the glory of putting me to the troll nest.


but you cant provide evidence, because you know just by following the 'parameters' as posted that the mass in FACT does affect the outcome.


ie.... that is what makes it 'stupid easy' and irrefutable.

 

[aleCcowaN]

irrefutable ...



Schrödinger's cat omnipotence

 

[Mikemcc]

yo Jack,

why not run the experiment yourself and prove me wrong?

I mean, if you could actually provide evidence, versus all these rhetorical rants, then you could send me to the doghouse, and have all the glory of putting me to the troll nest.


but you cant provide evidence, because you know just by following the 'parameters' as posted that the mass in FACT does affect the outcome.


ie.... that is what makes it 'stupid easy' and irrefutable.

You can't prove the absence of the effect. Why don't you show us proof of it's existance?

 

[Bishadi]

You can't prove the absence of the effect. Why don't you show us proof of it's existance?

i already know that 'heat' is the em AFFECTING the mass

in the period of the caloric theory, they did not know what em was

lavoisier has basic algebra to assist you with comprehending 'energy upon mass'


perhaps try it.

 

[Mikemcc]

So now you're trying to answer one thread on the other. How much more confused can you be!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

why not run the experiment yourself and prove me wrong?

Two reasons: burden of proof, which is all yours, and the fact that you have not defined and quantified the effect the experimenter is supposed to measure.

An alleged effect which has never even been noticed in one of the most repeated experiments in all of science is hardly likely to be easy to spot if nobody knows what they're supposed to look for.

Why don't you do your experiment?

 

[MattusMaximus]

yo Jack,

why not run the experiment yourself and prove me wrong?

As I've stated repeatedly here and in other threads, I have performed these and similar experiments plenty of times before. I even have my students perform them, and every time the results are consistent. And those results are NOT what you are representing here.

Why haven't you run these experiments yourself, Bishadi?

I mean, if you could actually provide evidence, versus all these rhetorical rants, then you could send me to the doghouse, and have all the glory of putting me to the troll nest.

Yup, I do provide evidence, every year in my advanced physics courses, in fact.

What experimental evidence do you have?

but you cant provide evidence, because you know just by following the 'parameters' as posted that the mass in FACT does affect the outcome.

ie.... that is what makes it 'stupid easy' and irrefutable.

So says the guy who apparently thinks he is too "smart" to run the experiments himself