explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[Tim Thompson]

Wave Particle Duality III

monochrome light double slit, detector/receiving 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?

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.

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. ... Why haven't you run these experiments yourself, Bishadi? ... What experimental evidence do you have?

For those of you lurking around in the background, watching without posting, it's all over. Don't bother with this thread any longer, as the one thing you will not see is anything resembling science. Anyone who makes a claim like this, but is unwilling to perform his own experiments to support his own claims is a person to whom one should pay neither attention nor respect.

Of course, I already know that the experiments Bishadi tells us to do have already been done, and thousands if not millions of times already. The effect he says we will see has already been not seen with sufficient regularity as to rigorously falsify all of Bishadi's claims. Once that point is made, the scientific conversation has ended.

The wave-particle duality runs far deeper in quantum physics than Bishadi understands. If we send electrons through the double slits, one electron at a time, we see a wave interference pattern build up as the individual electrons reach the screen. If we repeat that exact same experiment, but this time add a counter to detect which slit the electron goes through, then we do not see a wave interference pattern, we see a simple distribution of particle impacts on the screen, piled up as it were, beneath the slits. We can, and in fact do, force the electron to be either a particle or a wave, which ever we want. That peculiar result is true for neutrons, atoms & molecules. All of this is known and in the books, one need only look it up.

Bishadi is wrong. You may now leave this thread behind, secure in the knowledge that you won't miss anything other than the several pages of petty bickering that will now follow.

 

[Bishadi]

Tt,

you are dam right people are looking. As it it weird why no one recorded the results of that 'electron' patern with different mass of the detector to see that pattern and results change. The particle portion is ruined by the comprehension that the mass is emitting based on ITs threshold.

Ie..... Colors provide any reasoned human being that truth.

I posted up a method in every set of words possible. Either do it and prove me wrong or go lay by your dish!

 

[Emet]

For those of you lurking around in the background, watching without posting, it's all over. Don't bother with this thread any longer, as the one thing you will not see is anything resembling science. Anyone who makes a claim like this, but is unwilling to perform his own experiments to support his own claims is a person to whom one should pay neither attention nor respect.
<snip>
Bishadi is wrong. You may now leave this thread behind, secure in the knowledge that you won't miss anything other than the several pages of petty bickering that will now follow.

We know, Tim.

I can only speak for myself, but I continue to scan these and the other threads--I completely skip over the gobblety-gook and scan for some real lessons in various physics principles.

As I've said before, I've learned/relearned a lot since my college days.
And there are no tests; there is no tuition.

 

[Bishadi]

We know, Tim.

I can only speak for myself, but I continue to scan these and the other threads--I completely skip over the gobblety-gook and scan for some real lessons in various physics principles.

sounds like catechism of a catholic; "just forget the science and evolution of knowledge and stick to genesis"

As I've said before, I've learned/relearned a lot since my college days.
And there are no tests; there is no tuition.

you will learn more by maintaining honesty than friends

 

[Mikemcc]

sounds like catechism of a catholic; "just forget the science and evolution of knowledge and stick to genesis"




you will learn more by maintaining honesty than friends

No, it's because the experiment that you describe has been done ad nauseum. Diffraction forms the pivotal science behind all synchrotron experiment techniques. Not to mention all the aspects and uses of Raman Spectroscopy. All of your bluster falls flat given that your questioned techniques form an accepted, and widely used methodology for scientists, world wide. Oddly NONE of them have seen the effects thet you hope will overturn the principle of duality.

Without evidence you are quite clearly a hoaxer.

 

[Taarkin]

Well I just did the double-slit experiment against a sheet of paper, a sheet of metal, a plank of wood, and a slice of bread. It didn't change the diffraction pattern. OP's theory destoyed, thread over.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Well I just did the double-slit experiment against a sheet of paper, a sheet of metal, a plank of wood, and a slice of bread. It didn't change the diffraction pattern. OP's theory destoyed, thread over.

Thanks, Taarkin. The world owes you a great debt of gratitude. Thread over.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I find it troubling (and almost shocking) that the clearest and most understandable video of the double slit experiment that I've ever seen comes from the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?".

From the little that I know about this, everything in the clip (Dr. Q segment only) seems valid. I would appreciate more links to clear and accurate vids explaining the experiment, since I don't really want to promote WTBDWK, not even indirectly. I would especially appreciate videos that give comments to the reasons of the wave collapse. Any suggestions?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Yes .. the video from WTBDWK is nice .. except you must cut it just before they start to talk about observer. As for the wave collapse I'm yet to see good explanation. Everyone (trying to explain it in popular video at least) seems to be lost in it. And I haven't seen anything about it from Feynman for example.

IMHO it's rather simple though .. observer is just another detector, just another quantum interaction. Conscious observer or random electron passing by, or any outer force.
When does the wave collapse ? Whenever it has the chance !
Does Schrödinger's cat live if no one is watching ? How can no one watch ? The cat is watching ! The box it is in is watching ! All the world around is watching .. and possibly affecting the output.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I find it troubling (and almost shocking) that the clearest and most understandable video of the double slit experiment that I've ever seen comes from the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?".

From the little that I know about this, everything in the clip (Dr. Q segment only) seems valid. I would appreciate more links to clear and accurate vids explaining the experiment, since I don't really want to promote WTBDWK, not even indirectly. I would especially appreciate videos that give comments to the reasons of the wave collapse. Any suggestions?

The quibble I have with that (otherwise very clear) animation is that, by using a non-interacting eye to depict the act of observation, they allow the viewer to misunderstand that it's somehow the concept of the experimenter acquiring knowledge about the electron which causes the electron to change its behaviour, rather than any interaction between the electron and the means of its detection. In other words the animation implies that the electron "knows" when it's being watched when it appears that there's no way it could do so. It allows a remarkable effect to be seen as mystical.

Edit to add - What Dr.Sid said. I type too slow.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I agree, that's why I'd really like to know about similar quality videos that deal with the "observer effect" more accurately.

 

[dafydd]

Thanks, Taarkin. The world owes you a great debt of gratitude. Thread over.

Thread over.

 

[Skwinty]

Thread over.

It aint over until Bishadi stops singing.

 

[Bishadi]

I find it troubling (and almost shocking) that the clearest and most understandable video of the double slit experiment that I've ever seen comes from the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?".

From the little that I know about this, everything in the clip (Dr. Q segment only) seems valid. I would appreciate more links to clear and accurate vids explaining the experiment, since I don't really want to promote WTBDWK, not even indirectly.

i rather like the honest approach of "what the bleep......"

every kid should watch that before ever taking the word of a some of the per se teachers i have observed on these threads

I would especially appreciate videos that give comments to the reasons of the wave collapse. Any suggestions?

not sure an analogy offered by physicist would be the best rendition of the concept.


how about looking at waves on an ocean, when they reach a peak, they often cause a whitewash or white cap. ie... the energy is reaching a peak and enables mass to momentum.

nothing magical about it. Just as when we detect an em wave, anywhere within its field, we capture the unit at the angle/point to react to the detector and the whole function (wave field) colapses to that 'point' (per se particle).

kind of like soaking up water from a table. we see the drops as the 'wet' but the cloth has to soak up all of it for to satisfy the clean up as the total of "the wet" (a detector is capturing the energy within the field, but until the threshold minimum is captured for the mass (detector) the 'blip' does not record; the colapses are them thresholds for the mass)

 

[Bishadi]

Well I just did the double-slit experiment against a sheet of paper, a sheet of metal, a plank of wood, and a slice of bread. It didn't change the diffraction pattern. OP's theory destoyed, thread over.

the colors themselves shared the difference.


but that was not the purpose of the experiment (to show interference). This kind of bugged me the first day i posted as i wondered if someone would only read the one part.

The thread is about the particle wave, duality that people BELIEVE was rendered by the experiment. And to return to your experiment and then record the ONE (per se) photon at a time, then you will undoubtedly see the difference of the results (if your detector is capable to observe the ONE at a time, not to mention the ONE (per se) electron at a time test)



apparently you just looked at one part of the experiment, kind of like forgeting the color of all of your specimens

dont let it bother you, physicist on this planet comprehend that the sun and milkyway galaxy itself has a hugenormous magnetic field (magnetosphere) and that we can even pick up cars with electromagnets, but they dont even observe this force of nature, in any planetary motions (mercury's orbit) or the mass curve of the hubble galaxy observations (ie... that last one is weird as they see that the mathematical predictions are wrong and so they created dark matter/energy to fix it the math)


Dont let the ignorance of removing causal requisites get to you, as many of the trained are just as blind.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

not sure an analogy offered by physicist would be the best rendition of the concept.

If I thought this was intended ironically, I would nominate it.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Light is like a wave, because even one photon will diffract and interfere with itself, and it is particle, because one photon will still be detected only at one place.
What's wrong with that ?

 

[Bishadi]

If I thought this was intended ironically, I would nominate it.

and since you know the intent for these threads, ideas, concepts is for 'good'

then if, just if, what is being said is correct then do what i did a long time ago, just say 'oh sh't'.... learn more and build bridges for others.

ie.... knowledge evolves and 'we all' are just as important, capable and even more capable (internet) than any time in all history.



why is the double-slit experiment kind of like 'non-sense' in this day and age?

perhaps because we all are far more capable to describe it, then the old timers still 'walking the planck'..................


think of platos cave (allegory) within the context of 'walking the planck'; that jump will drown the best of them, return to planting both feet on the ground (addressing the benchmarks) and learn how to swim first.

ie... we can still build with QM (the infrastructure exists), but to go to the next level of science, to core principles of how it all works, then we all (the children especially) can address every ailment and phenomenon known to mankind.


There is nothign ironic about enabling people to think and often to comprehend life is not best understood by a preacher, like wise often to understand how to tie your shoe is not best found by learning from a physicist.



the double slit experiment is evidencing itself obsolete simply by each comprehending that the mass itself is relevant to the outcome.

I did nothing but offer a venue for each to think versus trying to be selfish or get my name in print.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Now I got you machine ! You failed the Turing test ! Btw. it was you no making sense at all which betrayed you.

 

[Bishadi]

Now I got you machine ! You failed the Turing test ! Btw. it was you no making sense at all which betrayed you.

anyone on a computer can fail the turing test

as the reason is without (observational) emotion, many cannot tell the difference

i have no emotion for bs but live on the pursuit of life (the good)

because of the intent is only to enable each to think for themselves.

This experiment is unique as it means anyone here can run it and see for themselves. The lay, by simply observing the colors; the well equiped lab, by noting the electron (particle/wave aspect) patterns (differences)

the detecting mass (matter) is relevant and completely over turns a key set of benchmarks.

nothing negative is happening except that now and especially with the internet, any of the old definitions of evidence can be bridged and combined simply by comprehending the principles of this experiment (the association of the mass/energy/time) within a system and remaining causal to the associations (entanglements).

Some of you might like the games of arguing.

i know the evolution of knowledge and while swimming in it, making big waves from a little tap on the surface. (just imagine what this experiment will actually do (the globes knowledge), once the ripples combine).

no turing for me as to comprehend the pursue of the time spent, you may learn the word 'integrity' and that root empathy we all possess.

some day a few will know who

but few care, to do what they know is true

even if is messes with the created you know who

think, if each of your claims you would hold true

then find yourself looking in the mirror with another who

i am equal, are you?