h a l f b a k e r yThis is what happens when one confuses "random" with "profound."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
It has been said that the twin-slit experiment really
embodies
all the wierdness of the quantum world. Single photons (or
electrons, or other small things) passing through the twin slit
diffract and interfere, as though they went through both
slits
and interacted with themselves. Yet, if
you add sensors to
see
which slit a particle passed through, you abolish the
interference.
This is all very well and good, but, I mean, what?? It has
never
made any intuitive sense, and old physicists have frittered
away their sunset years trying to show that there's some
underlying mechanism that makes it all Make Sense. To
date, of
course, they have failed and it has even been proven that
there cannot be an underlying "common sense" mechanism.
But some people just won't be told.
Fortunately, MaxCo. has found a way to cater for these
elderly
physicists. Our set up consists of a trebuchet, and a large
brick wall with a couple of slits in it. Another wall, without
gaps, is somewhere off in the distance. Our customers - the
aforementioned elderly physicists - first organise themselves
into groups of at least 500 individuals, and are then fired
toward the twin-slit wall one at a time, trebuchetally.
Many, of course, will miss both slits and simply hit the
nearest
wall. Too bad. The remainder, however, will sail through
one, the other, **or both** of the available slits, and thence
on
towards the distant final wall. Shortly before impact, each
elderly physicist will know (unless they blinked - again, too
bad) whether they passed through the left slit, the right slit,
or **both** slits. For a brief moment, they will have a direct
first-hand experience of quantum wierdness - the universe's
frilly underwear will be revealed to them in a moment of
transcendent glory.
Of course, one of the criteria for successful diffraction is
that
you can't ask the diffractee which slit(s) he went through.
This is where the euthanasia bit comes in, since impact with
the final wall will, alas, happen at an inescapably terminal
velocity, meaning that nobody can ask them "did you really
go
through both slits at once?". (Well, someone can ask them,
but they will be in no position to answer.)
Yes, for reals
https://thenextweb....-objective-reality/
[theircompetitor, Nov 16 2019]
[link]
|
| |
to do this properly, put the physicists into properly
gyroscopic Schrödinger boxes
(spheres if you like), so they couldn't tell even if they have
been launched, of course, and prevent any observation
of the launch or flight of the boxes, and then measure the
scatter pattern on the first and second walls |
|
| |
We tried, but we couldn't get the insurance for that. |
|
| |
Who are you, and what have you done with the real [MB] ? Is this a policy change ? Since when does any Buchanan prefer insurance to bluff, bluster, and threats of immediate physical violence ? |
|
| |
Well, OK, to be precise - we couldn't find a lawyer who was
prepared to draw up a convincing-looking document that
appeared to give the appearance of appearing to be insured. |
|
| |
Ah, now it makes sense ... carry on. |
|
| |
Carry On Diffracting didn't get the box-office returns it
deserved. |
|
| |
//link// So BEC is just an exuded container from the fabric of space-time that we need to get an observer behind? |
|
| |
Think of a Dewar flask, constructed of folded spacetime, but made like a five-dimensional Klein bottle with a knot in it, mapped to an n-manifold interlinked torus with a fractal perimeter. |
|
| |
Have you got that clearly visualized ? Good.
Now, that's exactly what BEC isn't. |
|
| |
Nope, visualization justly goes to a blurry goo. |
|
| |
I love this idea, by the way. + |
|
| |
In particular the question of “who is the observer”
in the collapse of the probability function- this is a
solution where the experimenter can observe the
result first-hand, without the external observation
of the collapse of the wave function. |
|
| |
//“who is the observer”// I think the main problem is that
people assume that a quantum wavethingy either collapses or
it doesn't, which flies in the arse of modern physics. |
|
| |
In fact, quantum collapse is a relative phenomenon - it may
have happened for one observer, but not yet for another
observer. |
|
| |
Now days, all observers have cellphones. But really I want data on the un-collapsed, from the inside.What's the dance of the quarks inside a BEC? |
|
| |
//What's the dance of the quarks inside a BEC?// |
|
| |
//What's the dance of the quarks inside a BEC?// |
|
| |
Very much like the Dance of the Ewoks in ROTJ; it's not big and it's not clever. |
|
| |
The shiver dance. There going to be some waiting for the chill to get to the quark energy level. |
|
| |
Call me boring, but two very large slots which
identical twins simultaneously walk through
might get you more data? |
|
| |
Sturton has a large collection of videos on a similar theme. Not much physics in them. Very ... physical ... certainly, but not much Physics. |
|
| |
<Wonders what "Elderly Physicist Enthusiastic Diffraction " might turn out to be/> |
|
| |
// Sturton has a large collection of videos on a similar
theme// Not since he lent them to you he hasn't. |
|
| |
I'm just wondering two things: |
|
| |
1. What kind of porn is being discussed immediately above? |
|
| |
2. Is 'euthanastic' really the adjectival form of 'euthanasia'?
Chrome gives it a red underline, and that's with the
Google-enhanced spelling thing enabled. |
|
| |
Well, I can't be held responsible for Chrome or Google's
vocabulary. In fact, given that Google is a madey-uppey
word, I don't think they can quibble about "euthanastic". |
|
| |