explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[dafydd]

Untrue. The experiment has not been discounted; it has been performed. The result is that your assertion that the patterns will change by changing the detector have been observed to be false. Therefore you are wrong. Get over yourself.

Any chance that you will admit that you could be wrong about something,Bishadi?Or will we get another word salad?

 

[Taarkin]

Is it just me, or has Bishadi conflated the concept of an element with mass?

I think he got pissed off when that "Which weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of lead" riddle tricked him as a kid and never looked back.

 

[Bishadi]

Untrue. The experiment has not been discounted; it has been performed.

I call your lie out.

define the experiment

The result is that your assertion that the patterns will change by changing the detector have been observed to be false. Therefore you are wrong. Get over yourself.

well now we have proof; you dont comprehend the wave-particle duality experiment.

The pattern of interferance (optics) are the shadows and the pattern for the single particle (photon/electron) portion is the most comprehensive aspect, to a scientist that does not comprehend what color is.

if you did not complete the single photon/electron portion, then you are just using a table a standard double slit experiment which has no method of providing evidence about the wave-particle duality to a person that is color blind.


I mean, if you cant see that colors are by the mass (detector) of this experiment, then you will need to perform the single photon/electron portion in a lab, were you can make an absolute fool of yourself when you see the results.

 

[Humanzee]

wait what??? I mean really...what? The experiment was done and your prediction was observed to be false.
Do the experiment yourself if you want to prove it wrong.

Words, gibberish or otherwise, dont change the results.

 

[RussDill]

I call your lie out.

define the experiment




well now we have proof; you dont comprehend the wave-particle duality experiment.

The pattern of interferance (optics) are the shadows and the pattern for the single particle (photon/electron) portion is the most comprehensive aspect, to a scientist that does not comprehend what color is.

if you did not complete the single photon/electron portion, then you are just using a table a standard double slit experiment which has no method of providing evidence about the wave-particle duality to a person that is color blind.


I mean, if you cant see that colors are by the mass (detector) of this experiment, then you will need to perform the single photon/electron portion in a lab, were you can make an absolute fool of yourself when you see the results.

OK, I realize there is a lot going on here that hasn't been explained, but can you expand on one thing.

Where does color fit into the double slit experiment, especially when electrons are used?

This statement especially confuses me, "a standard double slit experiment which has no method of providing evidence about the wave-particle duality to a person that is color blind". Can you explain why that would be?

 

[Humanzee]

Or yes...answering that would be nice too.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I call your lie out.

define the experiment




well now we have proof; you dont comprehend the wave-particle duality experiment.

Hilarious, but also rather pathetic.

The experiment was carried out as closely as possible to how you described it. Unfortunately it took a very large number of pages of persistent, patient questioning before you managed to reveal sufficient coherent fragments that we could actually begin to discern what your intended experiment actually was. If the experiment was not conducted as you intended, or the measurements were not made to your satisfaction, then that is nobody's fault but your own, because you utterly failed to clearly explain what the required procedure was and what measurements to take.

You have always been at liberty to explain exactly what procedure to follow, what measurements to make and what results you predict. That option is still open to you. Unfortunately, you have done quite enough to lose any chance of being taken seriously by anyone here until you come up with something concrete, so I am afraid that, having burnt your bridges, it now falls to you to conduct the experiment which you say you have failed to do these many years.

Please let us know how it goes. Thanks.

 

[dafydd]

I call your lie out.

define the experiment




well now we have proof; you dont comprehend the wave-particle duality experiment.

The pattern of interferance (optics) are the shadows and the pattern for the single particle (photon/electron) portion is the most comprehensive aspect, to a scientist that does not comprehend what color is.

if you did not complete the single photon/electron portion, then you are just using a table a standard double slit experiment which has no method of providing evidence about the wave-particle duality to a person that is color blind.


I mean, if you cant see that colors are by the mass (detector) of this experiment, then you will need to perform the single photon/electron portion in a lab, were you can make an absolute fool of yourself when you see the results.

Another word salad.Why don't you respond to our posts instead of posting more nonsense?

 

[dafydd]

Or yes...answering that would be nice too.

Bishadi doesn't do answers.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Please, don't provide any real physics information and vocabulary that can be used in this site or others to give the screw another turn. The technique seems to be forcing the debate until someone says "are you implying that the mass affects the result?", then, as it fits the mental scheme of the moment, it becomes an assertion "the mass affects the results" (initial "the" included) and this is in turn fed into another thread, even in another forum. This info pattern seem to be virally running across the net during months, even years, and now it seems to be our turn.

That's why the title of the thread is "explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?", a feigned statement that can be read as a range from "I assert this, you must prove it" to "why should you say that?". It's all designed to harvest, that's why I wasn't joking at all when I compared this with a jam band.

 

[dafydd]

Please, don't provide any real physics information and vocabulary that can be used in this site or others to give the screw another turn. The technique seems to be forcing the debate until someone says "are you implying that the mass affects the result?", then, as it fits the mental scheme of the moment, it becomes an assertion "the mass affects the results" (initial "the" included) and this is in turn fed into another thread, even in another forum. This info pattern seem to be virally running across the net during months, even years, and now it seems to be our turn.

That's why the title of the thread is "explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?", a feigned statement that can be read as a range from "I assert this, you must prove it" to "why should you say that?". It's all designed to harvest, that's why I wasn't joking at all when I compared this with a jam band.

I see your point,but Bishadi does provide a lot of giggles.

 

[Bishadi]

wait what??? I mean really...what? The experiment was done and your prediction was observed to be false.
Do the experiment yourself if you want to prove it wrong.

Words, gibberish or otherwise, dont change the results.

that poster did not do the experiment. That post was a lie!

 

[Bishadi]

OK, I realize there is a lot going on here that hasn't been explained, but can you expand on one thing.

Where does color fit into the double slit experiment, especially when electrons are used?

it is a common sense approach so that any could comprehend the matter (of detector) is relevant.

ie.... you dont see the light going to an object, you see what comes from the object.

This statement especially confuses me, "a standard double slit experiment which has no method of providing evidence about the wave-particle duality to a person that is color blind". Can you explain why that would be?

The double slit is a simple experiment used well before QM (the physics) even existed and few comprehended the mass had and effect on the outcome.

ie... a wave on a body of oil is different than a wave on water.

But that is not the highlight of the ACTUAL point of this thread; it is that the so called particle is not emitted from the diode (emitter of monochrom light) but that the matter (detector) is what is emitting the per se 'particle'.

And colors share this EXACT reality! And the evidence ranges from the Photoelectric effect to even the raman effect.

 

[Bishadi]

Hilarious, but also rather pathetic.

The experiment was carried out as closely as possible to how you described it. Unfortunately it took a very large number of pages of persistent, patient questioning before you managed to reveal sufficient coherent fragments that we could actually begin to discern what your intended experiment actually was. If the experiment was not conducted as you intended, or the measurements were not made to your satisfaction, then that is nobody's fault but your own, because you utterly failed to clearly explain what the required procedure was and what measurements to take.

You have always been at liberty to explain exactly what procedure to follow, what measurements to make and what results you predict. That option is still open to you. Unfortunately, you have done quite enough to lose any chance of being taken seriously by anyone here until you come up with something concrete, so I am afraid that, having burnt your bridges, it now falls to you to conduct the experiment which you say you have failed to do these many years.

Please let us know how it goes. Thanks.

i call your posts, lies.

You did not do the experiment as to comprehend what this thread has rendered and you would not need to.

But then if you DID the experiment, you would not be reacting like this.


ie.... your posts on this forum about doing the experiment, is a lie; period!

 

[Bishadi]

Please, don't provide any real physics

Edited by Professor Yaffle: 

Edited to remove incivility

The technique seems to be forcing the debate until someone says "are you implying that the mass affects the result?",

i need nothing from you as you already know the answer but to self centered to be scientific

and this is in turn fed into another thread, even in another forum. This info pattern seem to be virally running across the net during months, even years, and now it seems to be our turn.

and 'across the net' from combining entanglement to gravity, to even the comprehension of 'energy upon mass'................... many across the world are actually putting it together.

the self centered, could care less

That's why the title of the thread .

is not even my statement/claim.

i copied from another who made the comment

I understand already that you are not interested in reading so to believe you even comprehend what you read, is not worth anyones time.

 

[phunk]

per se

Would you please stop abusing the language and take the 2 minutes to look up what that phrase means, because it makes no sense in the context you keep using it in.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

i call your posts, lies.

You did not do the experiment as to comprehend what this thread has rendered and you would not need to.

But then if you DID the experiment, you would not be reacting like this.


ie.... your posts on this forum about doing the experiment, is a lie; period!

You appear unable to accept that your imagined version of physics could possibly be wrong. And unable to read, too.

I did not do the experiment. I did not say I did the experiment. Taarkin did the experiment. Is reading english as great a challenge for you as writing it appears to be?

I think what you are trying to say is that you do not believe the experiment was really done, as it did not give the result you (and only you) expected. If that is your position then I see no alternative for you but to perform the experiment yourself since, if anyone else repeats the experiment, the same thing is going to happen again. And again, and again...

Do it yourself. Prove to yourself you are deluded and wrong. Stop wasting everyone's time by yelling at the internet that (in your imagination) the world does not work as we observe it to work.

 

[Bishadi]

.

I did not do the experiment.

and so have no business discounting what you cannot sustain.



ie.... to false witness is like suicide

 

[dafydd]

that poster did not do the experiment. That post was a lie!

.The experiment has been done countless times and you are wrong.Live with it.Thread over

 

[dafydd]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of and response to moderated content