New version of double-slit experiment

[Nugatory]

Thanks, well, if what you are saying is correct i.e., all known theories predict P2 this is an example of where my theory predicts different result that it would be P1 without contradicting anything already shown to be correct, as far as I know thus far.

By "your theory", do you mean the idea that measurement results are determined at the source, as you suggested further up in this thread (for example, case a of post #3)? Such theories do indeed make different predictions than QM, and they have been already been refuted by other experiments.

 

[universecode]

By "your theory", do you mean the idea that measurement results are determined at the source, as you suggested further up in this thread (for example, case a of post #3)? Such theories do indeed make different predictions than QM, and they have been already been refuted by other experiments.

Thanks, yes, outcome determined at the source, but I have to be clear about what I mean by the "source".
Any interaction (with any particle) creates new source at every such interaction, hence all the experiments I've seen so far are not refuting my idea. Would you be able to direct me to an experiment which takes this into account?

 

[Nugatory]

Thanks, yes, outcome determined at the source, but I have to be clear about what I mean by the "source".
Any interaction (with any particle) creates new source at every such interaction, hence all the experiments I've seen so far are not refuting my idea. Would you be able to direct me to an experiment which takes this into account?

"Any interaction (with any particle) creates a new source at every such interaction" is a bit vague, but to the extent that it means anything, it's a basic feature of quantum mechanics, which deals only with interactions and uses the word "source" to identify the classical portion of a system involved in some interactions. To be more precise, you would have to use the language of state preparation and measurement.

The experiments that test Bell inequalities all take this into account.

 

[DrChinese]

Thanks, well, if what you are saying is correct i.e., all known theories predict P2 this is an example of where my theory predicts different result that it would be P1 without contradicting anything already shown to be correct, as far as I know thus far.

First, the predictions of QM have already been verified in regard to changes to the setup made at the last fraction of a second (see Weihs et al 1998 for example). I believe such has been pointed out a number of times. Just because you don't accept it, really doesn't mean much. Second, you haven't made any predictions, although you have waved your hands a substantial amount. Third, even if you had, you would need a theory to go with it for other physicists to be interested. Just making counter-predictions to established theory won't go very far.

Of course, you are free to conduct any experiment you like using your own time and resources.

And lastly, further discussion of your "theory" would violate PF forum rules on personal speculation. This is a moderated science forum, and you will need established references to continue. If you have any further questions on quantum mechanics, please feel free to start a thread. If you continue to argue on behalf of ideas with no connection to established science, you can expect to be reported quickly. This has gone on long enough, there are other readers here to consider besides yourself.

 

[universecode]

First, the predictions of QM have already been verified in regard to changes to the setup made at the last fraction of a second (see Weihs et al 1998 for example). I believe such has been pointed out a number of times. Just because you don't accept it, really doesn't mean much.

I have looked at Weihs et al 1998 - again this experiment confirms what we already know about hidden variables. If local hidden variables are given to a particle at the "classical source" and stay with it unchanged this cannot explain what we observe, how many times do we need to test it?

With regards to what I am proposing this experiment makes exactly the same mistakes made by all others - there are too many particle interactions between what you call "classical source" and the detectors and what I am saying is that the classical source is irrelevant because at each quantum interaction the hidden variables are changed.
For example, as photon travels inside the fibre as it happens in most of such experiments its hidden state is changed every time it bounces off the fibre's walls - isn't this obvious?

Second, you haven't made any predictions, although you have waved your hands a substantial amount. Third, even if you had, you would need a theory to go with it for other physicists to be interested. Just making counter-predictions to established theory won't go very far.

I gave just one example of counter prediction, there are others. Obviously, my theory is in embryonic state and I am researching everything I could by also asking what other people think. It is the only way to do research - I really don't understand why you having problems with this, given the desire of this forum to be circulated among universities. I am discussing something that is on the edge of understanding, and no one knows the answers - does it mean it cannot be discussed?

And lastly, further discussion of your "theory" would violate PF forum rules on personal speculation. This is a moderated science forum, and you will need established references to continue. If you have any further questions on quantum mechanics, please feel free to start a thread. If you continue to argue on behalf of ideas with no connection to established science, you can expect to be reported quickly. This has gone on long enough, there are other readers here to consider besides yourself.

Everything I am saying is based exactly on what Feynman said in all of his books, and as far as I know he has Nobel prize for it, isn't this good enough reference?
All the reference provided to me so far are not deep enough to address the issue I am discussing and I have explained why.

 

[universecode]

"Any interaction (with any particle) creates a new source at every such interaction" is a bit vague, but to the extent that it means anything, it's a basic feature of quantum mechanics, which deals only with interactions and uses the word "source" to identify the classical portion of a system involved in some interactions. To be more precise, you would have to use the language of state preparation and measurement.

I will be working on more precise explanations, of course, that will take years.

Meanwhile, this statement:

"the word "source" to identify the classical portion of a system involved in some interactions"

IMHO is THE problem with experiments such as ones testing Bell inequalities.

I do not believe in the existence of what we call "classical physics" - the world is quantum at its core, so all "classical" phenomena we are observing are simply emerging properties of the large number of quantum interactions. Hence, making experiments where we deliberately separate the system into classical and quantum portions is destined to fail to find anything new - we will always observe what we already know about supposed weirdness of our world.
Once you start accepting that the world is quantum with probability at its core and, whatever we call classical is just an aggregate property, nothing is weird anymore and all makes sense.

 

[Doc Al]

Closed pending moderation.