h a l f b a k e r yThis ain't rocket surgery.
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,
|
|
|
From an uneducated, cursory look the slit experiment looks like a black box. Place components in a box, put energy in , get a pattern out. Work out why the components got the pattern.
I presume all the isolating/shielding possible was done to make sure the components would not interfere with each
other in ways the would help isolate the actual pattern making action.
What I am suggesting is go the other way, put energetic components in the box that may perturb the system. If lucky enough, effects on the output pattern will help give more clues on the action occurring.
There are smart people working on this so might have already been done.
https://en.m.wikipe...Hylas_and_Philonous
There was a young man who said, [pertinax, Apr 27 2020]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
So are you proposing, for example, firing lasers tangentially across the double slit? |
|
| |
I think you need to be more specific, [wjt]. |
|
| |
//put energetic components in the box that may perturb the
system// could be a very small Robin Williams spraying graffiti
on the back wall, which would be entertaining but not
necessarily informative. |
|
| |
//Robin Williams// Depends what message he's spraying; he's very chaotic and random, so he could meet the requirements of the idea. |
|
| |
Also, he's dead, so being alive in the box also works in the experimentator's favour, quantum-energetically speaking. |
|
| |
Query: How can we be sure he's in the box, without checking and killing him again? The sound of small spray cans isn't immediately distinguishable from a box full of pissing (hissing?) cat. |
|
| |
// I think you need to be more specific, [wjt]. // |
|
| |
Hardly a challenge; it would be almost impossible to be less specific. |
|
| |
Tell us about the cat in the box with the lasers. Tell it slowly, so we can gloat over the details. |
|
| |
// There are smart people working on this // |
|
| |
<Nobly resists compulsion to draw Venn diagram for [wjt] and "smart people"/> |
|
| |
Because the resultant pattern is made of a action system that blurs a wave system, that needs a field and a particle system that is an independent entity. Conditions that distinguish the two have to be identified. So throw more conditions at the interacting action. Charge up the walls, bend the experiment with magnetic fields, run the some split unmeasured photons into a never-ending loop close to slits. Anything, with a bit more energy that may interact with the set up to spit out a differential clue. |
|
| |
I am thinking the box is holistic. As a component is put in the path it changes the whole. Time goes out the window. Perturb next to but not in the path for more clues about the summed situation. |
|
| |
I don't think just staring at the working apparatus through safety glasses counts as observation. Or does it? |
|
| |
//Time goes out the window.// |
|
| |
So, when we check back tomorrow, this thought experiment will
have benefited from centuries of refinement? |
|
| |
Equally well, no time may have passed from the point of view of the apparatus. |
|
| |
It's the Einstein Twin Paradox all over again. |
|
| |
'IF' space is stuff coming in and out of existence. An area next to a solid is going to behave differently to one out away from solids. The solid has energy stuff going which borders/touches, may even form a continuum with the space stuff. |
|
| |
Even without turning anything on, all the light components on the light experiment table have made a density deformation of the space stuff that is holistically connected. Funny, I'm suggesting ray tracing space. |
|
| |
How a photon actually touches space, an electron or another photon, is what everyone is really after. And so good for tech exploitation. |
|
| |
//'IF' space is stuff coming in and out of existence.// |
|
| |
Take a turn round the college gardens with Hylas and Philonous.
The irises are delightful, but pay particular attention to that tree. |
|
| |
"[pertinax], teach [wjt] phenomenology ..." |
|
| |
//'IF' space is stuff coming in and out of existence.// Should have said our measurable existence. |
|
| |
Because we can make abstract models in the mind, phenomenology may infer that light is just virtual landscapes of the reality. Though, virtual can't be, without a physical footing. The shadows on the wall still have to have a candle and wall. |
|
| |
The only way to really try to know is to trip over weird defining facts, caught in a Nobel, philosphy stimulating experiments. |
|
| |
// our measurable existence// |
|
| |
// virtual can't be, without a physical footing. // |
|
| |
That's exactly what "virtual" means. You can draw a wall, a candle and a shadow, but they have no physical reality other than marks on a plane surface, perceptually interpreted as the items depicted. |
|
| |
// perturbed slit experiments // |
|
| |
If you did it at the bottom of a pond, you could make it a "perturbed silt experiment", but that would only tend to muddy the waters... |
|
| |
// other than marks on a plane surface// exactly. Understanding the projector, not the projection. |
|
| |
There is no way the projection would not be cogged to the projector. A random semantic gap just cannot be. |
|
| |
//// I think you need to be more specific, [wjt]. //// |
|
| |
//Hardly a challenge; it would be almost impossible to be less specific.// |
|
| |
I'm going to make an attempt at this. |
|
| |
Physicists have discovered that if you treat a photon as a wave, it behaves in a wave-like
manner. And if you treat it as a particle, it shows particulate properties. |
|
| |
And wjt is saying, maybe that's not all. Let's treat it as other things, and see if photons act
the part. |
|
| |
So if we put, say, a psychiatrist in the black box, would they behave in a perturbed
manner? |
|
| |
Depends on the presence or absence of air-holes ... |
|
| |
That would be a "no-slit" experiment. The outcome would be a dead psychiatrist (after elapsed time 't') if the box were not opened in the interval. |
|
| |
Is there room in the box for a radioactive source, a bottle of poison, and a kitten ? |
|
| |
Wait, isn't Robin Williams also in the box?
<HankHill>
Big ding-dang box, I tell you hwhat.
<HankHill> |
|
| |
[Loris] All I am suggesting is try every thing that we know under the sun to get another reaction/data set out of the slit experiment. |
|
| |
Doesn't it seem obvious that the experimental equipment is part of the 'what' that collapses to a wave pattern or particle pattern. The box's substance is part of the action via whatever happens in the space between the photon and the box. I am imagining a photon hydraulic effect of some sort. As soon as there is an observer (plug hole outlet), different environment. |
|
| |
// As soon as there is an observer (plug hole outlet), different environment. // |
|
| |
But there, you fall foul of the Copenhagen interpretation. Without an observer, the experiment does not exist; it is, in a very meaningful way, actually created by the act of observation. |
|
| |
If you do not observe it, the wave function does not collapse, thus it has no existence. |
|
| |
An un-collapsed something is still an existing entity. It's not nothing. |
|
| |
None of it is directly observed anyway so, by that QED, nothing exists past the interaction of our atom constructions' electrons. It all is mediated observation via the never ending skin of electrons and how that wavy electron skin touches/interacts with photon carrying space. |
|
| |
// An un-collapsed something is still an existing entity. It's not nothing. // |
|
| |
That's completely wrong. It has no objective existence until it is observed; and it is impossible to prove otherwise. |
|
| |
An entity can be shown to have existence only when it interacts. |
|
| |
//it is impossible to prove otherwise.// |
|
| |
Bad philosophy. What you can accept as proven is limited to your mind, and no matter how many drones you have or how big your queen's brain, what you can accept is a subset of your environment. QED: There exist unproven things. |
|
| |
The existence of unproven things may be suspected or deduced; but to prove their existence they must be observed. |
|
| |
There is no deep reality. Reality is a phenomenon created by observation. |
|
| |
... which, funnily enough, is exactly what Bishop Berkeley
said (give or take the translation from C18th English).
Barking mad he was, but in some respects actually a few
centuries ahead of Newton (who was, in his own way, also
barking mad). |
|
| |
Deduction is sufficient evidence, when based upon unassailable mathematical principles. |
|
| |
Deduction is not evidence. |
|
| |
Evidence alone does not constitute proof. |
|
| |
If you believe two actions are causally connected, then a linking mechanism, irrelevant of it's observation, must also be inferred to exist. |
|
| |
At some point, does this discussion collapse into
philosphy or religion? Are we going to demand
rigidly defined
areas of doubt and uncertainty? |
|
| |
Yes. Or then again, perhaps not. |
|
| |
Believe nothing. Trust no-one. |
|
| |
At some point measurement verification is exceeded so belief/guess logic in models always comes into play. There is always a human technical bridge between the mathematics and the happenings. |
|
| |
I'm intrigued by this substance that is the EM field. A something that when given energy gives rise to things, including what we have labelled as electrons or photons. |
|
| |
The last time I perturbed a slit, a child came out as a
result. |
|
| |
Not enough experimentation to get in way then? |
|
| |