Quantum Physics Double-Slit Experiment

[Maxwell Jennings]

I remember my dad mentioning this experiment way back when I was in elementary school. It shows the affect of observations on at least this experiment, which leads me to question observed outcomes compared to observed processes and final outcomes of any experiment and how much an observation can change the outcomes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSnVnyQA8UU

What is the validity of these conclusions and how does it relate to EU experimentations?


Moderator note: spelling correction to thread title

[klypp]

Validity... As in well grounded?
Then there is no validity.

The video is about the Copenhagen interpretation in quantum physics. It only shows that if your fundamental ideas are wrong, you end up in mysticism.

[jjohnson]

This ought to be on the Miles Mathis page, but since it is a direct answer, let me urge you to read Miles's paper on the double slit experiment. I am not saying he is right, but I am saying you will probably find his explanation interesting. What I found most interesting was his idea of also mounting sensors on a wall where the photon source was located and making the side of the barrier with the slits in it reflecting, as in its being a mirror. I do not think that has been tried yet, anywhere in the extant literature that I've found, anyway. Incidentally, Miles doesn't say it, but the mirrored surface should be a front-surface mirror, not a mirror backing behind plastic or glass.

http://milesmathis.com/updates.html

[Jarvamundo]

Validity... As in well grounded?
Then there is no validity.

The video is about the Copenhagen interpretation in quantum physics. It only shows that if your fundamental ideas are wrong, you end up in mysticism.

right on

Why God Doesn't Exist 23: The Slit Experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

[altonhare]

Validity... As in well grounded?
Then there is no validity.

The video is about the Copenhagen interpretation in quantum physics. It only shows that if your fundamental ideas are wrong, you end up in mysticism.

right on

Why God Doesn't Exist 23: The Slit Experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

This.

[Maxwell Jennings]

This ought to be on the Miles Mathis page, but since it is a direct answer, let me urge you to read Miles's paper on the double slit experiment. I am not saying he is right, but I am saying you will probably find his explanation interesting. What I found most interesting was his idea of also mounting sensors on a wall where the photon source was located and making the side of the barrier with the slits in it reflecting, as in its being a mirror. I do not think that has been tried yet, anywhere in the extant literature that I've found, anyway. Incidentally, Miles doesn't say it, but the mirrored surface should be a front-surface mirror, not a mirror backing behind plastic or glass.

http://milesmathis.com/updates.html

Really informative article. Thanks. What he says makes a lot of sense and definitely shows how scientists can jump to conclusions without thorough experimentation or taking other explanations into account, especially at that atomic/quantum level. Right after that one, I read his paper on the illogic of atheism!

[klypp]

While Miles Mathis and Bill Gaede are both interesting and humorous, this might be a good time to cool it a little... So maybe I should provide a link to Carver Mead's famous Spectator interview back in 2001. Here he describes in simple terms what went wrong in quantum physics. And he has some important things to say about light and modern technology. Like:

With the transistor, the laser is one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century. Designed into every CD player and long distance telephone connection, lasers today are manufactured by the billions. At the heart of laser action is perfect alignment of the crests and troughs of myriad waves of light. Their location and momentum must be theoretically knowable. But this violates the holiest canon of Copenhagen theory: Heisenberg Uncertainty. Bohr and Von Neumann proved to be true believers in Heisenberg's rule. Both denied that the laser was possible.

Light is all about waves. Modern technology demonstrates this.

Miles Mathis seems to be stuck with the particle photon theory. If so, I'm afraid his experiment will fail for some of the same reasons that turned quantum theory into mysticism. Carver Mead:

The most famous of those experiments involved a "single" photon that somehow succeeded in going through two holes at once.
That uses a point-particle model for the "photon"--a little bullet carrying energy. If you define the problem this way, of course, you get nonsense. Garbage in, garbage out.

Bill Gaede is even worse out with his rope theory. Among other things, he bases this on the obviously wrong idea that “light always travels at the same speed irrespective of medium”.
If this was true, neither GPS nor a lot of radar systems would work. Just to begin with...
If you believe him, don't ever step into a modern aircraft anymore!

Seems like the same story over and over again. The guys that come up with revolutionary new ideas about light, are still hanging around Thomas Young trying to figure out what a candle light does to a slit.

Man, that was more than two hundred years ago!

[altonhare]

While Miles Mathis and Bill Gaede are both interesting and humorous, this might be a good time to cool it a little... So maybe I should provide a link to Carver Mead's famous Spectator interview back in 2001. Here he describes in simple terms what went wrong in quantum physics. And he has some important things to say about light and modern technology. Like:

With the transistor, the laser is one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century. Designed into every CD player and long distance telephone connection, lasers today are manufactured by the billions. At the heart of laser action is perfect alignment of the crests and troughs of myriad waves of light. Their location and momentum must be theoretically knowable. But this violates the holiest canon of Copenhagen theory: Heisenberg Uncertainty. Bohr and Von Neumann proved to be true believers in Heisenberg's rule. Both denied that the laser was possible.

Light is all about waves. Modern technology demonstrates this.

Miles Mathis seems to be stuck with the particle photon theory. If so, I'm afraid his experiment will fail for some of the same reasons that turned quantum theory into mysticism. Carver Mead:

The most famous of those experiments involved a "single" photon that somehow succeeded in going through two holes at once.
That uses a point-particle model for the "photon"--a little bullet carrying energy. If you define the problem this way, of course, you get nonsense. Garbage in, garbage out.

Bill Gaede is even worse out with his rope theory. Among other things, he bases this on the obviously wrong idea that “light always travels at the same speed irrespective of medium”.
If this was true, neither GPS nor a lot of radar systems would work. Just to begin with...
If you believe him, don't ever step into a modern aircraft anymore!

Seems like the same story over and over again. The guys that come up with revolutionary new ideas about light, are still hanging around Thomas Young trying to figure out what a candle light does to a slit.

Man, that was more than two hundred years ago!

I'll read the entire interview when I get to work in a bit.

The reason that light travels the same speed irrespective of the medium is that there is only one medium, the fundamental "stuff". Undulations of the thread always propagate at the same rate whether that thread comprises an atom, a molecule, etc. The bulk observed speed may appear to be less because light is deflected, absorbed and re emitted, etc.

Mathis' adherence to particles is representative of the most serious fundamental problems in theoretical physics. As you quoted, if you assume that you have a little gun shooting bullets at a screen but you actually have a wave phenomenon (torsion of a rope-like entity) then of course you will get absurd results. As was said, garbage in garbage out.

The rope avoids issues of the particle interpretation. Additionally, the Lorentz factor is actually a natural logical consequence of the rope hypothesis. Without specific reference to the rope structure one can deduce from the assumption that light is a transverse undulation, the motion of matter is a longitudinal undulation, and the net vector speed of all undulations is constant, that the wavelength from a moving atom must be longer than a stationary one. The rope is the structure that most easily replicates the transverse nature of light while also accomodating the longitudinal nature of atomic motion. You can't get transverse behavior in an "infinite continuous aether". Transverse behavior only arises at the boundary of an object, for instance ocean waves.

[klypp]

The observed speed of light is the observed speed of light no matter what causes this speed. Changing the name to “bulk observed speed” and saying it “may appear” is just nonsense.
The speed of light in a medium is what we measure it to be.

the Lorentz factor is actually a natural logical consequence of the rope hypothesis.

Holy shit!
I was under the impression that Gaede would have nothing to do with relativists. Wasn't this the guy that said “Relativists just go around and around in circles”?
The Lorentz factor is about time dilation and length contraction, and if his rope theory proves this, then Gaede is right up on the carousel with the rest of the gang.

The rope is the structure that most easily replicates the transverse nature of light while also accomodating the longitudinal nature of atomic motion. You can't get transverse behavior in an "infinite continuous aether"

I see now that this discussion is not about the wave nature of light, but rather about what the “aether” looks like.
In which case I have no strong views, except this: The aether must be shown to exist by other means than just postulating that any wave need to have something to wave. Until then, the idea that light is its own medium is as good as any idea.

[mharratsc]

I have to say, Klypp- that was a rather succint summation of the mental exercise here. I don't do very well with the in-your-head' stuff and am way more comfortable with the experimental stuff on the more macro level.

Your post really did me a service. Thank you

[altonhare]

The observed speed of light is the observed speed of light no matter what causes this speed. Changing the name to “bulk observed speed” and saying it “may appear” is just nonsense.
The speed of light in a medium is what we measure it to be.

You set a race car off at some constant speed. You measure it at intervals and find it to be constant. Then the race car enters a labyrinth/track that you can't quite see into. When it comes out the other end it has taken much longer to go through the labyrinth than you would expect based on its previous speed and assuming it went through the labyrinth without veering this way and that.

That's all I'm talking about. If we could shrink down to the size of an atom and watch the aether itself undulate we would observe that it is always constant. The speed of light between any two atoms is always the same.

the Lorentz factor is actually a natural logical consequence of the rope hypothesis.

Holy shit!
I was under the impression that Gaede would have nothing to do with relativists. Wasn't this the guy that said “Relativists just go around and around in circles”?
The Lorentz factor is about time dilation and length contraction, and if his rope theory proves this, then Gaede is right up on the carousel with the rest of the gang.

We have to explain why the wavelength of light from a moving source is longer than from a stationary one. It is perfectly reasonable to venture an explanation for this empirical observation. Furthermore, it would be satisfying to explain why the velocity dependent redshift appears to be related to the quantity gamma, which is another experimental result of note.

It turns out that the superposition of a transverse wave undulating at a constant speed superimposed on a longitudinal wave moving at v will slow the propagation of the transverse wave by the factor gamma. Therefore an atom will re-emit light at a rate that is slower by a factor of gamma. This is not "time dilation", it's a velocity-dependent redshift, no less a logical consequence of the particular natures of light than is the standard doppler effect. Nobody ever called the standard doppler effect some kind of anisotropic "time dilation".

The rope is a physical structure that supports both transverse waves and longitudinal waves.

The rope is the structure that most easily replicates the transverse nature of light while also accomodating the longitudinal nature of atomic motion. You can't get transverse behavior in an "infinite continuous aether"

I see now that this discussion is not about the wave nature of light, but rather about what the “aether” looks like.
In which case I have no strong views, except this: The aether must be shown to exist by other means than just postulating that any wave need to have something to wave. Until then, the idea that light is its own medium is as good as any idea.

This is about a structure of light that reproduces what we observe experimentally. Some people don't care about the structure of light but are content to simply describe the patterns we observe.

Until then, the idea that light is its own medium is as good as any idea

We need to distinguish between two common usages of the word light. One refers to "light the object/medium" and the other refers to the "action/motion" of some object or medium. When I say "ocean" it conjures up in many people's minds a scene of waves crashing on the beach or smooth gentle bumps on the surface of water rolling by. Other people visualize a static, still image of water with no wave motions. When there is confusion or we want to make sure we're specific we clarify whether we're talking about the water itself or the movement of the water.

[klypp]

Alton, if you want to debunk the wave theory of light, you should at least first find out what waves are.
Your analogy with a race car and a labyrinth just demonstrates your misconceptions. What you are describing is linear particle motion, not waves.
To begin with, you cannot just set off a wave at "some constant speed". Whatever you do to start the wave, the wave will always propagate with a speed determined by the nature of the wave and the medium it propagates through. Light coming from air will slow down if it hits water, sound will speed up. If we reverse their tracks, sound will slow down and light will speed up. Particles will never speed up just by entering another medium. They will always slow down.
You won't accept these simple observational facts. In stead, you come up with all kind of "explanations". Like

The reason that light travels the same speed irrespective of the medium is that there is only one medium

Oh well... Some truisms are better than others. This one is simply too good to be true!

If we could shrink down to the size of an atom and watch the aether itself undulate we would observe that it is always constant. The speed of light between any two atoms is always the same.

The first sentence says that the frequency is constant. The second says that the speed is constant. You are just mixing things up. And neither of these postulates are likely to be true.

You can't get transverse behavior in an "infinite continuous aether". Transverse behavior only arises at the boundary of an object, for instance ocean waves.

An earthquake produces both transverse and longitudinal waves propagating through the ground, in addition to the surface waves produced. You will also find both transverse and longitudinal waves beneath the surface in water. You are just making up "facts" in order to save your theory.

We have to explain why the wavelength of light from a moving source is longer than from a stationary one. It is perfectly reasonable to venture an explanation for this empirical observation.

At first I thought this was a typo. But then I realized it's just as misunderstood as the rest. The wavelength is longer if the source moves away from us. If it moves towards us, the wavelength is shorter. The Doppler effect was explained more than 150 years ago. To you this is a mystery because you got it all wrong to begin with.

This is not "time dilation", it's a velocity-dependent redshift, no less a logical consequence of the particular natures of light than is the standard doppler effect. Nobody ever called the standard doppler effect some kind of anisotropic "time dilation".

"A velocity-dependent redshift" is "the standard doppler effect". You have no idea of what you're talking about and believes it's two different "consequences of the particular natures of light". Another truism, the first one was better, almost poetic compared to this...
And finally, the gibberish highlight:

It turns out that the superposition of a transverse wave undulating at a constant speed superimposed on a longitudinal wave moving at v will slow the propagation of the transverse wave by the factor gamma. Therefore an atom will re-emit light at a rate that is slower by a factor of gamma.

The Lorentz factor, the Lorentz gamma factor, the gamma factor - they are all aliases. We are still talking length contraction and time dilation here. You didn't like to be associated with that and solved the problem by changing the name. Not very smart. We all know how to google.
Needless to say, the above gibberish is just nonsense.

Every now and then I meet someone telling me "they have seen the light". All too often they no longer see reality.
You are no exception.

[altonhare]

Klypp, you have to think to understand.

[Goldminer]

Altonhare @ Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:25 am wrote:

Light is all about waves. Modern technology demonstrates this.

Goldminer writes: Yes! And we have a really good name for it, the Aether. We think we know something about it, then again we think we don't.

Here is a list of "properties" that I have been contemplating for the aether:

It has permeability, something to do with 4pi which is 2 circumferences, 720 degrees. Far field?

It has permittivity, something to do with the ratio of volume to area and 36pi. Near field?

At any and every "point" within it, whether it has motion itself or not, it faithfully receives and retransmits maybe a gazillion or more vibrations, modulations, etc, rays of light and other radiation straight away along each path from source to wherever it is detected, without distortion when the source and detector are traveling in the same direction, at the same speed, at the same time.

It must be responsible for the delay between emission and detection.

I've read that longitude waves cannot travel in aether, but with the above properties, why not? With two "rotations" the aether should be able to handle extra "information" like polarization and such.The aether at any volume [chunk of space] in the visible Universe has to be pretty busy handling all the traffic, no?

I'm think'un the "photon" is an artifact, since the only way radiation is known is by its interaction with matter. Near field is known and was discovered by measuring parameters around radiating and receiving antennas, extrapolated to light frequencies.

By the way, "gamma photons" from several nuclear decays haves been split and detected at different respective places at the same time, destroying the photons' "particle" nature.