Oops, I accidentally figured out quantum uncertainty.

  • Thread starter exeric
  • Start date
  • #26
39
0
Originally posted by neutroncount
I'm listening to you. Some people seem so caught up selling their point that they don't care to listen to anyone that actually HAS experience in this. Physics is made up of math. Not a long paragraph of technobabble of someone trying to sound smart. Brad has always come through in showing the flaws in a theory, with math and without, and I applaud that. I think people need to listen more to the ones who know what they are talking about, and not concentrate on breaking theories that have gotten us so far in only a few hundred years.
I think you, and some others like Brad are mistaking my enthusiasm for trying to sound smart. How I come off to people has a lot to do with both what I'm saying and the lister's (readers) attitude. They are inescapably mixed together. I may share some blame for trying to "sell my point". Others may share some blame for being overly invested in the status quo to the point that they feel threatened.

Eric
 
  • #27
499
1
Brad, did you forget to take your meds today. You seem pretty upset.
ad hobinem tactics get you nowhere in debate. I am upset because people like you just waltz in and claim to have solved the big mysteries of science and that the professionals haven't because they are trying to maintain some secret order. If people did that to a profession you have busted your ass off for many years to work for and done the actual stuff, you might be a little angry when people just come storming in.


I think you, and some others like Brad are mistaking my enthusiasm for trying to sound smart. How I come off to people has a lot to do with both what I'm saying and the lister's (readers) attitude. They are inescapably mixed together. I may share some blame for trying to "sell my point". Others may share some blame for being overly invested in the status quo to the point that they feel threatened.

Eric
Again, see about the status quo thing. Science is about continual revision. But when you sell a theory, you need to support it with coherent physical concepts and mathematics. Math is the language of nature.
 
  • #28
39
0
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
ad hobinem tactics get you nowhere in debate. I am upset because people like you just waltz in and claim to have solved the big mysteries of science and that the professionals haven't because they are trying to maintain some secret order. If people did that to a profession you have busted your ass off for many years to work for and done the actual stuff, you might be a little angry when people just come storming in.

Again, see about the status quo thing. Science is about continual revision. But when you sell a theory, you need to support it with coherent physical concepts and mathematics. Math is the language of nature.
I can see we're not going to have a meeting of the minds. This is what I wrote in about the 3rd or 4th in this series


"...And don't think I'm providing a theory in the sense of a mathematical proof or laboratory results. What I'm saying is more in the nature of an intuitive thought experiment that I'll leave to others with more physics/math ability that I have to prove."

Did you even bother to start from the beginning on this topic so you could get a feel for what type of person I am. I don't think so. You are just too heavily invested in this subject and are a person who had benefited too much from the system to be open. You take things personally when it isn't about you.

Eric
 
  • #29
95
0
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Yes you are wrong. 1)the whole concept is conceptually flawed as I stated by the lack of incorperating or even allowing delayed choice.

2)What would cause the interference to just simply vanish?
1) stop simplifying and give more details about that delayed choice.
2) because in exeric's theory after some ammount of time all the electrons will just go straight into the wall between the two splitings.
 
  • #30
499
1
I don't care what kind of person you are. That is irrelevant to the nature of the proposed idea. It just is not physically sound!


1)If one came up or understands this idea, then I really shouldn't have to explain delayed choice. However, if my chemistry class goes well, I will post a follow up explaining it, or perhaps provide a link that will explain it as well.


2)Again, why would this happen?
 
  • #31
39
0
Brad, to me delayed choice is a more distasteful theory than almost any that have come before. It impies we are God-like in deeming the validity and reality of everything. Our simply looking at a thing determines whether it took shape ions in the past. To me its the ultimate cosmic cop-out. But I can see why you'd like something that makes you feel like God.

As long as we're talking now about Physics delving into the philosophy of existance I believe that the universe in total may be God. We are like a cell in the body of God. But I don't think that I, as one cell, is the brain of the behemoth and cam make it do what I want it to. It would be like the Hindu tale of creating a world by dreaming of it.

Eric
 
Last edited:
  • #32
neutroncount
Originally posted by exeric
Brad, to me delayed choice is a more distasteful theory than almost any that have come before. It impies we are God-like in deeming the validity and reality of everything. Our simply looking at a thing determines whether it took shape ions in the past. To me its the ultimate cosmic cop-out. But I can see why you'd like something that makes you feel like God.

As long as we're talking now about Physics delving into the philosophy of existance I believe that the universe in total may be God. We are like a cell in the body of God. But I don't think that I, as one cell, is the brain of the behemoth and cam make it do what I want it to. It would be like the Hindu tale of creating a world by dreaming of it.

Eric
Delayed choice is an experimental fact. Unlike your theory.
 
  • #33
39
0
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I don't care what kind of person you are. That is irrelevant to the nature of the proposed idea. It just is not physically sound!

Hey all and Brad, I've been thinking about my original idea about the 2 slit experiment. It doesn't work the way I proposed. Creator asked a couple of question. While trying to answer them I came up with this.

"I looked at your questions more closely and realized I didn't really answer them. I think I may have answered your first question in my post before this but obviously there's some holes left in the theory. The lowest average energy levels in the ZPF begin at the center and work laterally out. Closest to the gun the center path has almost no quantum energy levels compatible with the electrons. They are cleaned out. But as each electron travels farther horizontally there is more and more likelyhood it will find a compatible quantum charge that will jolt it laterally. This is because there will be more and more electrons that will have left the center path. Each electron that leaves the center path leaves a compatible quantum charge 1 Planck distance past that. So there is a gradient of lower to higher energy levels at the compatible freqencies along the path from gun to hole. And there is a similar gradient laterally from center to widest dispertion point for the dispersion at any given distance fron the hole. Like I said a cone best defines the outside shape with an infinite number of smaller cones inside where each cone represents equal average energy densities of compatible quantum energy. But each smaller cone represents a lower energy density. Think of them like those Russian dolls with one inside the other.

As far as the wave nature: There is obviously a relation between the velocity of the electrons (the energy level) and the ZPF coarseness You could call it the chunkiness of the compatible ZPF conponents. I don't yet have an intuitive feeling for that. But it will end up being a frequency related to how often an electron gets zapped during its horizontal movement. It may end up being something as simple as the classical definition transposed to work at this quantum level."


To make a long story what I just said above doesn't work. I don't think it models dispersion right, either as particles or a waves. And it doesn't address the frequency problem either. Sometimes one just has to plod along until you get to the bad result and then you realize.

But let me address the quarrel between me and Brad. There are right ways to get people to come to the correct conclusion and there are wrong ways. Creator asked some really good questions and made it clear that he wasn't biased again me. The fact that I knew he wasn't biased against me made me take them seriously. And when I tried to answer them I couldn't. Way to go Creator!

On the other hand the first remark I got from Brad was a disparaging one. And I'm sure this isn't news to you Brad - I tuned you out. When I start thinking about a new theory I don't think. "I'll rework this mathematical formula so that its right." No, you think about the results of a theory that don't make sense to you. Then you try to think about about what may be missing. Along the way you try diffent conceptual ideas that may be missing. You don't start with the original formula and try to rework it from a mathematical viewpoint. Once you settle on a promising concept - in my case it is the idea of introducing memory into the ZPF - then you try to go to the logical end to see if it makes sense. In my case it didn't. But if it had - THEN you apply the mathematical rigour. You do numerical modeling at THAT point - not at the beginning - like Brad would have you do.

Just my opinion.

Eric
 
  • #34
499
1
Had I had more time I would have replied with questions as well. And if you note, I did indeed ask questions. But the fact is, all I had to do was bring up delayed choice to invalidate your idea. Then I got back to the mounds of differntial equations and physics homework I had. Anyways, I'm glad you realized you were mistaken. Anyways, you're method you had for creating a theory has some real steps in it, albiet not in that order necessarily. Generally there is a sure-fire way to create a theory, which is different than a concept. The concept is the first part, and you can make one of those anyway you wish. After you have a concept, you do extensive research to make sure it doesn't violate any laws. If it does, unfortunately the concept is gone. If it doesn't violate any laws, you then check to see if it contradicts any strong theories (like QED or GR). Now, if it does, you can do one of two things. Develop a mathematical framework, see if it makes more precise predictions, newer ones that the old ones can't explain, or if you can derive the strong theories it contradicts in some way. That is a key feature. GR can derive newton's laws. And then see if it contradicts any weaker theories. Once you get past the theory checkpoint, you then develop the mathematics. Notice before you were just making sure it was physically sensible. That is, it didn't say mass can be created or destroyed. But the math is what can kill a theory dead center. It must be both externally and internally consistent mathematically. Once you have that, if one gets that far, then you make predictions with it to be tested. That is what a theory is made of. What you did was come up with a losely organized concept. Nothign wrong there, but you have to remember to develop it and make sure it makes physical sense.

I would suggest getting a few more years of mathematics and physics courses, and come back again. We do love new ideas and theories contrary to what the crack pots seem to think. All of science is debate. But it is not just a "Thor say this right. All others wrong / No, we are the only right way" debate. It is an educated debate that is based off of certain frameworks. Learn them, and you'll see that it is not only much easier to see new connections and make new ideas, but people will actually love to hear them and recognize you have something there.


Hope that helps some.
 
  • #35
95
0
1) I'm waiting for that explination and/or link
2) Because his ZPF will be full of holes and no electron will move sideways.
You see, Brad, I'm kind of destroying his theory from the inside. This ZPF is practically made of radiation which in normal conditions I don't think will move slower than c. If he hadn't retracted his theory after that my next question would have been weather or not most of the electrons would go away from the center line and there would be no more center maximum, etc.
 
  • #37
95
0
I think I don't get it. What does using telescopes instead of a screen change in the interference pattern? The interference pattern comes from the number of photons that hit the wall in different points. If you move those telescopes you will indeed find out which of the two slits the photon has passed through, but the number of photons you will see won't change. It would be the same as if you used a screen. Using the telescopes will not change the way photons decide their "route" after passing through one of the slits.
 
  • #38
499
1
Ok, basica synopsis:

You are right, the number of observed photons will be the same.

BUT,

if we keep the screen, we get a wave-like reading. That is, the photons act as waves. If we look at the telescopes, we get point particle like readings. Now, They should only act as one or the other. Waves can go through both holes and interfere, but points cannot. Yet, what we do, is wait until the photon has already passed the slit and then decide if we wanted it to have traveled as a wave or particle.

For other explinations or drawings, search on the web for delayed choice, or read some books on quantum physics, such as "Entanglement" or "Q is for Quantum." That latter is more of an encyclopedia of physics terms, and is quite handy.
 
  • #39
russ_watters
Mentor
19,028
5,187
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Yet, what we do, is wait until the photon has already passed the slit and then decide if we wanted it to have traveled as a wave or particle.
I'm not sure thats entirely clear. You didn't say how we "decide." My (admittedly limited) understanding is that you can close one of the two slits AFTER the photon has passed through and the interference pattern disappears. Somehow the photon had to "know" ahead of time that one slit would be closed.
 
  • #40
499
1
yes, we close a slit afterwards is one way. There are other versions out there, but that is what it boils down to.
 

Related Threads for: Oops, I accidentally figured out quantum uncertainty.

Replies
2
Views
478
Replies
13
Views
956
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
942
Replies
3
Views
1K
Top