DrChinese said:
1. Yes, visual models lead to inaccuracies in QM. They can be useful, as you would hope any model is. In science (and other things as well) it is often said: "The map is not the territory" (Korzybski). I use mental models all the time, but I try to keep in mind that saying... Cheers,
My reply here is mostly to confirm that we're on the same page. Because it'd be silly if we were addressing what we think a person is saying instead of what they actually mean.
With that in mind, I'll ask you to elaborate on some things so that I can respond to what you actually meant since I was unsure (and for that reason am seeking clarification).
And let's clarify something: I agree with almost everything you said. For example, the maths have been the source of most accuracy. That's undisputable.
So got two points to address though:
Of course you have equal access to them, but admittedly they won't make much sense without suitable foundation
Access isn't the problem, as I'd said:
I don't have access to any studies and trials we might've performed to quantify our conclusions
Have we performed studies about creating visuals and then mathematically aligning them to fit observations?
Also, thanks for the link.
Your link seems to say that when polarizers create differently polarized light, then the interference pattern vanishes even if it's one photon at a time. And then an additional polarizer that identically polarizes every photon will make the interference pattern reappear.
And, the interference pattern will appear after we insert the additional polarizer (the quantum eraser) but before the photons have even reached the photon collector. If I'm reading that right.
And to be honest, that doesn't seem so crazy as a lot of people make it out to sound. (The paper you linked doesn't use such hyping)
Doesn't seem that different than the instantaneous effects from experiments in entangled photons, to be honest.
Instead of labeling those unfathomable, I think it's more productive to investigate those specific aspects for the answers we're missing.
Ok next.
speculate that what everyone is telling you has actually been poorly researched by a lot of very intelligent scientists
If you're viewing my stance as "scientists are wrong" then you'd be incorrect about my stance, which is: to compare Einstein's method with the rest, and conclude that we can replicate Einstein's approach in a collaborative way that's mathematically aligned and has scientific guidance.
Einstein seems to have made the most transformative leaps into theory by one person.
Quantum probably made greater leaps, but its theory was made by many people's experiments. (ncluding by Einstein!)
Several people laid the groundwork for Einstein and they seemed close to figuring out relativity, but he did the thought experiments with mental visuals and then he created the theory, using maths like a lot of very intelligent scientists do.
But he did it without access to our modern equipment that today are still confirming his theory. Someone later did the experiment to confirm that an eclipse would reveal how warped spacetime is able to bend the path of light.
That's what I'm proposing to do: kickstart an experiment to use Einstein's approach way more than we have.
I think people here are zooming into the examples of visuals that I had already labeled as faulty because of their inaccuracy, so the logical thing is for me to stop using those as examples and instead use Einstein as the only example.
Now, continuing.
Guess what, there are double slit experiments that flat out contradict that statement regarding collapse.
Great, see it's already working!
My proposal is, we create visuals with the guidance of scientists, and if the visuals are mistaken, then we readjust. And then the mathematicians realign the visuals to fit our observations. And simulation makers will see what they might find using the results.
Let's stop discussing YouTube visuals. We're discussing a potential approach to discovery.
If anyone can come up with a better visual aid, I'm quite sure everyone would embrace it. I can assure you, I have personally read at least 100 (maybe 500) papers attempting to come up with new ideas. So far, it's slim pickings.
Are we talking an open collaboration that's guided by scientists on livestream with the visuals mathematically realigned to observations and then run into simulations?
This analogy has been repeated through the years. But it is extremely misleading and has no bearing on QM.
That was in reply to my response about electromagnetism and quantum being different models after you had said:
"there is no good classical visualization of the relationship between electromagnetic radiation and photons"
But my error was previously missing your earlier part that said:
"The interference pattern produced in single-photon experiments is different".
So now I might understand. You seem to be saying that the models are irrelevant because the two simply behave differently.
The beam of light doesn't behave at all like the photons. Even their interference pattern differs.
Ok, thanks for keeping the thread open while I was at busy and at work. Scrambling now to write this before driving 4 hours to a job.
It'll be a few days before I can reply so please continue to keep this thread open.