Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Why are you so dishonest with yourself, and in turn me.

Is a single person a crowd of people?

Is a baseball 1,000 baseballs?

Is a single particle, 500 particles shot over the course of 30 minutes?

It's self evident what is happening, if you can't figure it out, don't blame me or call me dishonest. There is a pattern forming from individual electrons. Why does this pattern form?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

When one particle at a time is fired at two slits, where is the particle aimed?

One particle is as wide as the bowling alley?

Is the bowling ball as wide as the bowling alley in the above video? No. The analogy is not that hard.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's self evident what is happening, if you can't figure it out, don't blame me or call me dishonest. There is a pattern forming from individual electrons. Why does this pattern form?

"Why does this pattern form?"

That is what I am trying to figure out.

Which is why I ask; When one particle at a time is fired at two slits, where is the particle aimed?

Is the bowling ball as wide as the bowling alley in the above video? No. The analogy is not that hard.

I know its not that hard. Ready, watch this.

In the bowling alley analogy, when he threw one bowling ball, did it only make one mark in the detector?

This leads me to posit, that the main variable that leads to where a particle will end up on the detector, is the aim of the nozzle in accordance to the slit, and how the particle on its trajectory, physically interacts with the material of the slit. So that over the course of hundreds of trials, the nozzle shooting particles does not shoot straight and hit a bulls eye every time, but something of the nature between how the particle is created, how it is spinning when it leaves the nozzle, how it is interacting with the material of the nozzle at the exact moment of its departure from the nozzle, sends it on slightly different courses each time. I assume the materials of the slits are composed of atoms which perhaps have electrons on/of them. The particle with its unique trajectory per trial, will perhaps be further or closer to the slits material each time, the electrons of the material, of which, may have their unique spins and directions of orbit, so as particles that pass through the slits near the edges would be compelled to be redirected or urged on a specific path, according to the original trajectory as leaving the nozzle.


Which is why I ask; When one particle at a time is fired at two slits, where is the particle aimed?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
That is what I am trying to figure out.

Some smart guys think they already figured it out, but yeah I know you think they're dumb and you're way smarter.

Which is why I ask; When one particle at a time is fired at two slits, where is the particle aimed?

Did you watch the video? If you haven't watched the video showing the bowling ball going down the bowling alley I suggest watching at least the first part of it. The bowling ball is aimed down the bowling alley. The trajectory is somewhere within the bowling alley each time, it's not more precise than that. Sometimes it passes through one slit, sometimes the other, and sometimes neither. It can bounce off the middle barrier between the slots or even the outer barrier outside both slits.

The aim of electrons fired at a double slit are comparable in that the beam or path of the electrons is wider than the width of both slits. No one electron is that wide, but the trajectory is not so precise that you can aim the electrons to say all go through one slit. The slits are very narrow.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Some smart guys think they already figured it out, but yeah I know you think they're dumb and you're way smarter.

Even guys who you think are smart can be wrong, and they are.

Did you watch the video? If you haven't watched the video showing the bowling ball going down the bowling alley I suggest watching at least the first part of it.

That doesnt answer my question. They didnt include that important piece of data. The question im asking. Its not answered. Its important. This sort of thing is how misinterpretations occur, go figure.

The bowling ball is aimed down the bowling alley. The trajectory is somewhere within the bowling alley each time, it's not more precise than that.

Is it aimed at the middle of the two slits?

This is why I am scared for you!!!!!!!!! Do you really not get the importance of this???????? Cognitive dissonance. You are neglecting logic to keep in tact your simpleton world view.

Think about this:

If the bowling ball is not aimed down the middle, what does that mean? If it is not aimed down the middle, where is it aimed? If the bowling bawl is not aimed directly down the middle perfectly straight down the middle straight perfect line straight down the middle equal distance between the two slits in the middle straight down the middle straight straight perfect down the middle straight. If its not. Then what? hehe, you lose. I win, I won this argument a long time ago, but we all know how long religious nuts can hold onto their ignorance.

The aim of electrons fired at a double slit are comparable in that the beam or path of the electrons is wider than the width of both slits. No one electron is that wide, but the trajectory is not so precise that you can aim the electrons to say all go through one slit. The slits are very narrow.

Why are you talking about a beam. We are talking about ONE! electron at a time. ONE!

1


One at a time!

only one!!

Only fire 1!!!!!!!!!!! Electron!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Is ONE! electron wider than the slit?


Ok so you are now saying exactly what I have been telling you? That the trajectory of the electron particle is such that it creates an angle when heading towards the slit, such that it is possible for the electron to not go through the slit cleanly?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok he confused me as well as far as aiming they aim for one slit or the other for callabration you fire at one slit and block tje other. You should see the electron always hit directly behind the slit you know its callabtated. You dont aim between the slits because the electron would just bounce off not passing through. Ive actually done this in labs. Cycle

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok he confused me as well as far as aiming they aim for one slit or the other for callabration you fire at one slit and block tje other. You should see the electron always hit directly behind the slit you know its callabtated. You dont aim between the slits because the electron would just bounce off not passing through. Ive actually done this in labs. Cycle

K.

Ive only ever argued against the notion that a single particle creates an interference pattern.

Ive only ever argued against the notion that a single particle travels through both slits (unless like a water ballon it hits the center and splashes its confines through both).

If you agree with these sentiments of mine, we have not been arguing about anything. What is the central issue we have been arguing about? What about what I have been saying have you been trying to prove wrong?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
You can't see a pattern at 1 second, however you do see a pattern 30 minutes later. The spot you see at 1 second is part of that pattern, so in a way, yes what you see at 1 second is part of the pattern observed 30 minutes later (the video was sped up).

now I think I know what you mean...

all the electrons fired in the time you are observing added together build up a wave of particles ( electrons )
this is what it means a part of a pattern that is more completed 30 minutes later.

so... also asteroids are continuous wave of particles, right ?
maybe we could calculate the pattern where those hit, would be easier to hide

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok he confused me as well as far as aiming they aim for one slit or the other for callabration you fire at one slit and block tje other. You should see the electron always hit directly behind the slit you know its callabtated. You dont aim between the slits because the electron would just bounce off not passing through. Ive actually done this in labs. Cycle

K.

Ive only ever argued against the notion that a single particle creates an interference pattern.

Ive only ever argued against the notion that a single particle travels through both slits (unless like a water ballon it hits the center and splashes its confines through both).

If you agree with these sentiments of mine, we have not been arguing about anything. What is the central issue we have been arguing about? What about what I have been saying have you been trying to prove wrong?

A single particle does create an interference pattern when we allow it to take more than one path. We dont see the pattern until we do it multiple times being were human and slow to recognize patterns. We only see an interference pattern when we have a second slit contrary to what logic tells us. Logic says having a second path shouldnt change the results. Using your bowling analogy if we use 1 lane we throw the ball pins drop. However now you pay for a second lane throw your ball and something strange happens pins on both sides drop meaning the ball travelled down both lanes logic says this is impossible but thats exactly what we found happening.

This tells us that our particle had a wave effect simce we know the particle cant be in both lanes. So. Are ball is obviously not where we believe it to be. This is where being a wave the ball can be on either lane at any given moment and only when a reaction such as pins falling can we figure out where its at.

See this is the strangeness of quanta and this is why scientist cant figure out how this can occur. Well i take that back we have a theory involving quantum tunneling that explains it but again we can only verify are results and make predictions. This tells us were right on whats happening but as to why thats a diffrent matter.

a reply to: KrzYma

'It' just responded to me. Do you feel like telling him why hes wrong this time (/like every time)? I really hate saying the same thing over and over.

a reply to: dragonridr

A single particle does create an interference pattern when we allow it to take more than one path.

Two slits, one particle. How many hits on the detector?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
One but if you only do the experiment with one particle, and never fire a second particle, or third, etc, you won't learn anything from the experiment, that I know of.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
You might be surprised. When you know as little as I do about this there's a lot of room for learning.

In what way does the one particle interfere with itself? Or is that not claimed to happen?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
One but if you only do the experiment with one particle, and never fire a second particle, or third, etc, you won't learn anything from the experiment, that I know of.

The only conclusion from the experiment that can be made is that the particle gun cannot shoot straight and/or a particle coming out of the gun (if the gun is perfectly straight) cannot be made to travel in a perfectly straight path.

And if it can, then the way in which the particle interacts with the atoms/electrons of the material of the slit, that is to say the electrons spin and orbits in the atoms, the particle may catch them at different locations, and this is what sends the particle in different directions.

No other conclusions can be made.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
One point that ImaFungi has been trying to make is that at a truly fundamental level, we're not exactly sure what happens, but as the Nova video explains, the results of the experiment trouble everybody, or they should, because they don't match our logic. So after being beaten over the heads with these experimental results, which don't match Newton's classical deterministic world, the model of quantum mechanics evolved. It mathematically explains what happens and can predict what will happen in future experiments with good accuracy. We have a scientific consensus that QM models this behavior accurately

But the understanding of why the model works doesn't have a scientific consensus. One understanding is called the "Copenhagen interpretation" which is probably the most popular view but it got less than 50% of the votes in a science conference along with maybe 8 other options. This is explained here:

Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols


a reply to: ImaFungi
Yes when you've predetermined that is the only possible outcome, no other outcome is possible, except it happens anyway and you can't explain it. You have no model to explain what happens and your idea about not shooting straight doesn't explain what's observed. If it really does, write your paper and get your Nobel prize, but you've demonstrated no Nobel Prize-winning knowledge here.

a reply to: ImaFungi
That makes sense to me.

Another thing I'd like to know is if the slit aspect is removed, can the 'gun' hit the detector directly with single particle strikes repeatedly in the exact same location?

ETA: Arb, I think I hate the Copenhagen thing more than I hate Schrodinger's cat. The cat is dead, end of story. But, I do like Schrodinger's view mentioned in the NOVA vid. Anyway, going to watch what you just posted.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation


Another thing I'd like to know is if the slit aspect is removed, can the 'gun' hit the detector directly with single particle strikes repeatedly in the exact same location?

That would be a great thing to know, surely.

ETA: Arb, I think I hate the Copenhagen thing more than I hate Schrodinger's cat. The cat is dead, end of story.

But, I do like Schrodinger's view mentioned in the NOVA vid. Anyway, going to watch what you just posted.

Schrodinger created the thought experiment to make fun of believers of copenhagen interpretation and people like arb and dragon. But in a cruel twist of irony, or fate, or probability, those same people took it as evidence of their beliefs! HA! you cant make this stuff up...well, they can.

"Schrödinger wrote:[2][3]

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

—Erwin Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)"

" Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation"

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Yes when you've predetermined that is the only possible outcome, no other outcome is possible, except it happens anyway and you can't explain it. You have no model to explain what happens and your idea about not shooting straight doesn't explain what's observed. If it really does, write your paper and get your Nobel prize, but you've demonstrated no Nobel Prize-winning knowledge here.

I am not claiming to be modeling something. Just because I cannot model something doesnt mean I dont know something. A cave man couldnt model a lot of things, didnt mean he didnt know how to start a fire, hunt an animal, make clothes, make a house, follow his desires, use his body, raise a child.

I am making a very logical posit. One that has more weight of validity behind it then any other posit, including the one you are making.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I am not claiming to be modeling something. Just because I cannot model something doesnt mean I dont know something.

You don't know how the interference pattern forms. Actually nobody does exactly but QM models the interference pattern. By the way this also happens:

originally posted by: ImaFungi
the way in which the particle interacts with the atoms/electrons of the material of the slit, that is to say the electrons spin and orbits in the atoms, the particle may catch them at different locations, and this is what sends the particle in different directions.

The pattern resulting from interacting with the slit is called the "diffraction pattern", but this is different from the interference pattern. The following picture shows both types of patterns:

Double Slit

Same double-slit assembly (0.7mm between slits); in top image, one slit is closed. In the single-slit image, a diffraction pattern (the faint spots on either side of the main band) forms due to the nonzero width of the slit. A diffraction pattern is also seen in the double-slit image, but at twice the intensity and with the addition of many smaller interference fringes.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
ETA: Arb, I think I hate the Copenhagen thing more than I hate Schrodinger's cat. The cat is dead, end of story.

But, I do like Schrodinger's view mentioned in the NOVA vid. Anyway, going to watch what you just posted.

The "many worlds" interpretation in that video is even worse than Copenhagen, to me, but the guy making the video seems to like it. At least he admits he's not sure it should be the consensus view.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I am not claiming to be modeling something. Just because I cannot model something doesnt mean I dont know something.

You don't know how the interference pattern forms. Actually nobody does exactly but QM models the interference pattern. By the way this also happens:

originally posted by: ImaFungi
the way in which the particle interacts with the atoms/electrons of the material of the slit, that is to say the electrons spin and orbits in the atoms, the particle may catch them at different locations, and this is what sends the particle in different directions.

The pattern resulting from interacting with the slit is called the "diffraction pattern", but this is different from the interference pattern. The following picture shows both types of patterns:

Double Slit

Same double-slit assembly (0.7mm between slits); in top image, one slit is closed. In the single-slit image, a diffraction pattern (the faint spots on either side of the main band) forms due to the nonzero width of the slit. A diffraction pattern is also seen in the double-slit image, but at twice the intensity and with the addition of many smaller interference fringes.

Are those patterns for one particle?

a reply to: ImaFungi
As the Veritasium video I posted previously explained and demonstrated, the interference pattern is the same. Remember that? He fires the beam, gets the pattern. Then he adjusts it to fire one at a time, and gets the exact same interference pattern with the same spacing.

Watch it again if you don't remember. One key thing you should take away from that video is that this distinction you seem to be making between one at a time and a beam doesn't seem to be verified by experiment, because the pattern is the same either way.