Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks for the vid, that was interesting. I don't want to go into all the different views but the one thing that struck me was that all these smart people hold (seemingly to me) mutually exclusive views on this.

My main objection is to the notion of a photon interfering with itself in the DSE. Unless I've really missed the point, either that is the fundamental error of interpretation of the DSE results (only IMO of course) or a photon is not a 'particle'.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.

The distinction is that, ONE! particle IS NOT! making A INTERFERENCE PATTERN BY ITSELF!

The conclusion is that, SOMETHING ABOUT THE SET UP!

IS CAUSING THE PARTICLE TO NOT ALWAYS TRAVEL IN A STRAIGHT LINE!

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
My main objection is to the notion of a photon interfering with itself in the DSE. Unless I've really missed the point, either that is the fundamental error of interpretation of the DSE results (only IMO of course) or a photon is not a 'particle'.

I don't think anybody was that surprised to see wavelike properties from the photon as those had been known for centuries. The apparent wave properties of matter probably came as more of a surprise than the wave properties of light.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The distinction is that, ONE! particle IS NOT! making A INTERFERENCE PATTERN BY ITSELF!

Agreed you can't see any pattern when you fire only one particle. But fire another, and another, and another, and eventually, a pattern forms.

The conclusion is that, SOMETHING ABOUT THE SET UP!

IS CAUSING THE PARTICLE TO NOT ALWAYS TRAVEL IN A STRAIGHT LINE!

This would explain why the pattern "spreads out", and dark bands in a diffraction pattern, but not the dark bands in the interference pattern.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

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.

Well heres the catch so to speak cover one of the slits and again no interference pattern are detector will score a hit right behind the slit. So if you want to explain somehow the gun is misaligned or doesnt travel a straight course how can that be effected by blocking one of the two slits? This action should not change the outcome one bit but it does.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks for the vid, that was interesting. I don't want to go into all the different views but the one thing that struck me was that all these smart people hold (seemingly to me) mutually exclusive views on this.

My main objection is to the notion of a photon interfering with itself in the DSE. Unless I've really missed the point, either that is the fundamental error of interpretation of the DSE results (only IMO of course) or a photon is not a 'particle'.

Well at first we didnt think a photon was a particle it was always assumed to be a wave until Einstein changed the rules so to speak. What surprised people is that light is indeed a particle well let me restate a photon has both qualities of a particle and a wave but we can't truly say its either one because its not its a photon. People tend tosay acts like a particle or a wave. The unusual thing is we found things we thought were solid matter also acting the same way in experiments. Think about this and its implications matter isnt as solid as we thought it was a oddly follows the same rules as light. This means we can even do some strange things like a recent experiment where they turn light into matter. Now lets just take this one step further imagine if we could turn matter into light and then back again the uses for that would be unlimited.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.

The distinction is that, ONE! particle IS NOT! making A INTERFERENCE PATTERN BY ITSELF!

The conclusion is that, SOMETHING ABOUT THE SET UP!

IS CAUSING THE PARTICLE TO NOT ALWAYS TRAVEL IN A STRAIGHT LINE!

Dont you think scientists thought of the same thing. So this experiment has been done multiple different ways with different set ups yet the results are always the same. If it was just one experiment id probably agree with you but its not. And changing the number of slits should affect its path but it does, This is an effect of quantum tunneling which has been proved in multiple other experiments as well. See these conclusions you have difficulty accepting so did many others and lots of experiments were done as i said before this is all counter to logic. Even Einstein had trouble wrapping his head around the results troubled him until he died. And trust me when i say he wasn't alone but we can't argue with the results because they're not going to change. So accepting this is the way the universe is leads us to a whole new set of questions. And the search for those answers has brought us alot of new technology including things like nanotubes used in circuits or electron microscopes.

Then theres some really cool effects like the Aharonov–Bohm solenoid effect. This by the way again shows particle duality as a side note. Here take a look as i said it isnt just one experiment you're arguing against but hundreds of them.

phys.org...

a reply to: dragonridr

The unusual thing is we found things we thought were solid matter also acting the same way in experiments.

When water is used to illustrate/explain the interpretation of the results does anyone say or think a water molecule passes through both slits?

If the screen is eliminated and you fire single 'particles' (photon or electron), will they strike the exact same location on the detector every time?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
When water is used to illustrate/explain the interpretation of the results does anyone say or think a water molecule passes through both slits?

Leonard Susskind addresses that at 2:40 in the 2nd video (NOVA) at this link: www.abovetopsecret.com... but basically he says the waves are formed by the water molecules but in that analogy we aren't saying the molecules themselves act as waves, though in a different experiment, they could.

If the screen is eliminated and you fire single 'particles' (photon or electron), will they strike the exact same location on the detector every time?

Not sure what you mean because in the electron experiments I think the screen and the detector are integrated, so if you remove the screen you've removed the detector. Without the screen you'd have to describe the detector to predict what it would detect.

In the photon experiments you could aim a camera at the screen to detect the patterns/photons, but without the screen where would you aim the camera or what would you use for a detector?

originally posted by: dragonridr
Dont you think scientists thought of the same thing.

They did? Maybe they aren't as dumb as ImaFungi thinks they are!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Leonard Susskind addresses that at 2:40 in the 2nd video (NOVA) at this link: www.abovetopsecret.com... but basically he says the waves are formed by the water molecules but in that analogy we aren't saying the molecules themselves act as waves, though in a different experiment, they could.

But would a single water molecule pass through both slits simultaneously as it's said a photon does?

Not sure what you mean because in the electron experiments I think the screen and the detector are integrated, so if you remove the screen you've removed the detector. Without the screen you'd have to describe the detector to predict what it would detect.

I'm using "screen" with the slits to distinguish it from the "detector" that records the strike patterns.

This is the closest I'll probably ever be to the equipment to do a DSE www.colorado.edu... It won't allow me to remove the screen with the slits or fire a single particle. I need to rely upon the info from members here who have used such equipment to answer my question. So far, Google has stonewalled my requests for an answer to this question, will a gun firing single particles strike the detector in the exact same point each time? The way I think, that's the first hurdle I need to clear to get any of this.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

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.

Well heres the catch so to speak cover one of the slits and again no interference pattern are detector will score a hit right behind the slit. So if you want to explain somehow the gun is misaligned or doesnt travel a straight course how can that be effected by blocking one of the two slits? This action should not change the outcome one bit but it does.

When it is firing at one slit, is the gun aimed directly at the opening of the slit? And if it fired straight every time, or the urgency of the particle itself when leaving the nozzle regardless of its spin or polarity manages to not collide or be moved slightly to the side by interacting with the slits edged material, then we would expect for single slit firings for there to be a perfect 1 electron area large detection point, which time and time again each particle hits this exact bulls eye. For single slit, is this the case? Or for single slit, are the detections detected not in a perfect bullseye, but in the up and down axis as well, and to some extent, even the left and right axis?

And then the very important follow up question; when there is one slit and the gun is aimed directly at the opening of that slit, and the particle goes through, is the gun moved at all? from that position, when the second slit is opened? Or is the gun kept exactly as it was for the single slit trials, and then the other slit is opened? This is a very important question, as all mine are, I hope you can answer it/them.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
But would a single water molecule pass through both slits simultaneously as it's said a photon does?

I know the experiment has been done with buckyballs (C60) which are far larger with 60 atoms, than water molecules with only 3 atoms, so I presume it would work with water molecules but I've never seen the experiment.

I'm using "screen" with the slits to distinguish it from the "detector" that records the strike patterns.

I thought screen meant target, if you mean slits just say slits.

You can do this at home for a few dollars:

Do it Yourself Double Slit Experiment (Young's) - Easy At-Home Science

If that doesn't answer your question, maybe put the question in the context of that experiment.

By the way, when posting a link, don't put a period after the link, at least not without a space, because the way you did it without a space, it breaks the link.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
And then the very important follow up question; when there is one slit and the gun is aimed directly at the opening of that slit, and the particle goes through, is the gun moved at all? from that position, when the second slit is opened? Or is the gun kept exactly as it was for the single slit trials, and then the other slit is opened? This is a very important question, as all mine are, I hope you can answer it/them.

Yes. The experimental configuration remains the same other than opening or closing a slit. Even the single slit case is not compatible with particle mechanics.

You can imagine the two slits being a bit separated from each other, and the electron aimed at the center between them. |slitA| *aim* |slitB|

When one slit is open (note, you didn't fire exactly on the slit directly) you get dispersion anyway, like light waves, that is, going through even one slit the output 'fans out' (in both directions). In the picture above, assume slitA is open and B is closed. You aim directly center, and there is
some dispersion (because of the finite wavelength of electrons in reality but assume what you will). Since you're aiming from the center, if it were classically particle like, you would expect the output behind slitA to be even more to the left, correct?

So already in the first instance, this shows that real electrons in some regimes do not behave in a particle-like manner, because if they did and you aimed straight on (where it is blocked) you would't get anything, and if aimed somewhat at an angle (or with some noise in the angle) and if it were entirely particle-like, you would get output through the slit only on some angles which are the continuation of the path between source and slit.



But that doesn't happen at very smallest scales with electrons. It behaves similarly to how light behaves (with one slit). Experimentally you get some 'bend back', so behind slitA some of the time it goes back to the right. In light waves this is called 'diffraction' when the size of the slit is commensurate with the wavelength. Contrary to particle mechanics.

Then with two slits open (and aim point still in the center), you get interference patterns as well. So it behaves similarly to how light behaves (with two slits). Contrary to particle mechanics.

And the strange thing is that this effect stays even when the electron flux is so low that there is only one electron at a time in motion. How would one electron know if any additional experiments were to be done? It doesn't. Remember, back with classical electromagnetism there was no notion of any particle or any minimum magnitude, the laws of E&M could have any arbitrarily small amplitude and so there was no conceptual paradox with Maxwellian electromagnetism. With QM it's strange, because there is some minimum quantum size/energy/excitation, and yet you have wave properties all the time no matter what.

The conclusion is that underlying mechanical laws of physics governing electrons must contain a wave propagation equation and this is fundamentally incompatible with standard particle mechanics.

There is a physically appealing picture of this called Bohm-DeBroglie mechanics which gives the same experimentally confirmed results as regular quantum mechanics but has a different cognitive picture where the dual nature of particle and wave is made explicit. Please read about it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I know the experiment has been done with buckyballs (C60) which are far larger with 60 atoms, than water molecules with only 3 atoms, so I presume it would work with water molecules but I've never seen the experiment.

What happened? Did a single buckyball pass through two slits simultaneously?

If that doesn't answer your question, maybe put the question in the context of that experiment.

Single particle? I can't do that. I'm not questioning diffraction or interference patterns using a light source producing more than a single photon.

a reply to: mbkennel

Ok so this is different information than I have been receiving regarding the aiming of the particle gun.

So in all the experiments its aimed directly in the middle of both slits?

And even when one slit is closed, aiming directly in the middle of the slits, allows the particles to pass through the slit?

originally posted by: mbkennel
There is a physically appealing picture of this called Bohm-DeBroglie mechanics which gives the same experimentally confirmed results as regular quantum mechanics but has a different cognitive picture where the dual nature of particle and wave is made explicit. Please read about it.

Yes it may be physically appealing but apparently not appealing enough to get any votes in the poll of experts on their favored interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was the third option with zero percent of the votes:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not sure why it didn't get a single vote, but ImaFungi might like it since it's deterministic. I remember reading a few years ago some ideas on how it might be tested but I've not seen any conclusions since; I don't know if the tests were ever done, or if they would even be conclusive if they were.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
What happened? Did a single buckyball pass through two slits simultaneously?

That's my understanding, according to the wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

An important version of this experiment involves single particles (or waves—for consistency, they are called particles here). Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected. Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up one by one (see the image to the right). This demonstrates the wave-particle duality, which states that all matter exhibits both wave and particle properties: the particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position, while the wave describes the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place of the detector. This phenomenon has been shown to occur with photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs.

Single particle? I can't do that. I'm not questioning diffraction or interference patterns using a light source producing more than a single photon.

OK but, you realize the pattern doesn't change when you add up the single photon hits? You do need better equipment to regulate individual particles.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
This demonstrates the wave-particle duality, which states that all matter exhibits both wave and particle properties: the particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position, while the wave describes the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place of the detector. This phenomenon has been shown to occur with photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs.

The particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position. ALWAYS!

"'The wave' describes".... And the wave 'ONLY DESCRIBES!'.... the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place of the detector.


How are you failing to understand this. THIS IS SOOOOO SIMPLEEEEEE.

EVERY TIME A DICE IS ROLLED A SINGLE SIDE IS MEASURED! EVERYTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT BECAUSE THERE ARE SIX SIDES OF A DICE AN EQUATION CAN BE MADE OF PROBABILITY, BY INCLUDING ALL POSSIBLY LOCATIONS OF THE PARTICLE, ALL POSSIBLE SIDES OF THE DICE, AN EQUATION CAN BE MADE FOR PREDICTING.

THIS EQUATION MADE FOR PREDICTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL REALITY!!!! IT IS ONLY A TOOL USED TO OBSERVE PAST OUTCOMES AND DISCUSS FUTURE ONES!

THE DICE IS NOT WHILE BEING ROLLED A PROBABILITY WAVE FUNCTION! THERE ARE PHYSICAL VARIABLES, HIDDEN FROM OUR KNOWLEDGE AND PARSEMENT WHICH FORCE THE DICE TO END UP LANDING ON THE SIDE IT DOES.

LIKEWISE THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THERE IS ANYTHING BUT PHYSICAL VARIABLES, HIDDEN FROM OUR KNOWLEDGE AND PARSEMENT WHICH FORCE A PARTICLE TO END UP LANDING WHERE IT DOES.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position. ALWAYS!

"'The wave' describes".... And the wave 'ONLY DESCRIBES!'.... the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place of the detector.

How are you failing to understand this. THIS IS SOOOOO SIMPLEEEEEE.

I understand that. I would understand it even if you didn't type in all caps, which aren't needed nor helpful and all caps posts are discouraged by ATS.

Did you look into the DeBroglie-Bohm mechanics that mbkennel mentioned? It would be more interesting to hear your thoughts on that than for you to keep repeating yourself.

Bohm interpretation

Via Bohm, each particle goes through one slit rather than the other, while the wave traverses both slits. The electron's motion is guided - both in its choice of slits and its subsequent trajectory towards the screen - by the wave. The characteristic wave-interference pattern seen in the detection of the electrons arises by considering that the guiding wave itself will show interference in the familiar way one learns in the elementary physics of waves.

It's deterministic and doesn't require the electron going through both slits, but it is a little more complicated since it adds a wave to the electron and the wave does pass through both slits. It's deterministic, and Einstein wanted a deterministic explanation, but he thought it was a too complicated with "unnecessary superstructure".

Despite the "unnecessary superstructure", apparently the interpretation agrees with observation, so far.

You may like the Bohm interpretation better than the Copenhagen interpretation for the double slit experiment, but I think quantum entanglement experiments still pose some problems for your ideas don't they?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

You may like the Bohm interpretation better than the Copenhagen interpretation for the double slit experiment, but I think quantum entanglement experiments still pose some problems for your ideas don't they?

No, Einstein is my best friend, we agree that that interpretation belongs in the trash with the rest.

And no, entanglement experiments pose no problems to my world view, your interpretations of entanglements experiments disagree with my world view, but that is no problem, because most people in a mental institutions interpretations disagree with my world view too.

I think fungi explains it well. Never understood why the math, which describes probability, should be mixed up with what's actually occurring in reality. The math is just there as a means to map out the possibilities after the fact. It shouldn't be used as a guide to understand the nature of the phenomena. That's backwards. We infer from the phenomena, how to map it out, and check the math to see if the model works out. Doesn't mean we mistake the math for the phenomena. That's just silly.

The best we can say is that there's an as of yet, unknown factor(s) at play, which makes it seem to do things which don't jive with the rest of our scientific knowledge. At least, that's what makes the most sense to me.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
THIS EQUATION MADE FOR PREDICTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL REALITY!!!! IT IS ONLY A TOOL USED TO OBSERVE PAST OUTCOMES AND DISCUSS FUTURE ONES!

That's a pretty good description of having something to do with physical reality in my mind and that of scientists.

In your opinion: what would an equation that does have something to do with physical reality be like? How would it be different from physics?

THE DICE IS NOT WHILE BEING ROLLED A PROBABILITY WAVE FUNCTION!
THERE ARE PHYSICAL VARIABLES, HIDDEN FROM OUR KNOWLEDGE AND PARSEMENT WHICH FORCE THE DICE TO END UP LANDING ON THE SIDE IT DOES.

In my opinion, the wavefunctions of the apparatus being used to measure.

LIKEWISE THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THERE IS ANYTHING BUT PHYSICAL VARIABLES, HIDDEN FROM OUR KNOWLEDGE AND PARSEMENT WHICH FORCE A PARTICLE TO END UP LANDING WHERE IT DOES.

There is no experimental evidence there is anything other than quantum mechanics which you don't like because it's "mathematical abstraction", and experimental evidence that rules out a whole lot of "quantum mechanics plus something else" theory.

Aspect experiments confirming Bell inequalities among others.