“a well positioned different and strict frequencies around a given peak that is larger than all these different and strict frequencies”?
Yes, and you can't grasp it with your left-only hemisphere reasoning.
The Man said:
Did you just deliberately or accidentally confuse an explicitly sinusoidal modulated time varying “signal frequency” with a single frequency?
Either way, one is just as ridiculous and futile as the other and your attempts to posit this as representative of any double slit experiment is a simple and obvious lie.
Let's see
The Man said:
Again looking at through which slit each photon goes just removes the both slits path from the possible histories. The reaming possible histories must still be summed over (considered in superposition) in order to accurately calculate the resulting pattern on the screen, in other words (since your so fond of them) looking through which slit each photon passes does not eliminate the superposition of possible histories it just removes one possible history (going through both slits) from that superposition of (sum over) possible histories.
Wow, The Man's left-only hemisphere reasoning does not recognize history with time.
But this is his least problem about the considered subject.
The Man's major problem is his inability to grasp the superposition of identities (AB) and their collapse into well defined identities (A,B).
The Man's limited left-only hemisphere reasoning, which is limited only to form of strict ids like (A,B), can't grasp the following:
---------------------------
A=”Non-locality”
B=”Locality”
n=2
n-Uncertainty
x n-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition (AB,AB) are collapsed into single outcomes (A,B):
Code:
(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) ()
A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._.
(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)= (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)= (A),(B)
(0,0)= ()
Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.
The universe of single outcomes is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty
x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.
--------------------------------
The Man said:
Again Amplitude by position (in the double slit image linked) is not a spectrogram
So stop talking about spectrograms, as you did hear
The Man said:
See what? You have shown no spectrogram. So you are either confused about what a spectrogram is or just simply lying. Amplitude by position (in the images linked) is not a spectrogram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram
because they can't help to get the uncertainty and redundancy of superposition of ids, which is definitely not superposition collapse into well defined peak(s) that is (are) surrounded by well defined smaller frequencies.
A wave pattern is less positioned than a well defined peak (or well defined peaks) as observed in one open silt or two open slits + measurement's interruption.
The Man said:
the spectrogram from the Wiki article, leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are just a compulsive liar. Please tell us Doron why anyone should continue a conversation with someone who is just a compulsive liar?
Tell me The Man, why do you think that you are unable to compare forms and get their similarities?
I'll tell you why, because you have no spatial (right-hemisphere) reasoning.
So please tell us The Man why anyone should continue a conversation with someone who is just limited to left-only hemisphere reasoning? (for example:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7467300&postcount=16235 and
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7469302&postcount=16236 is beyond your left-only hemisphere reasoning).
By analogy: You are like a one-eyed observer which claims that two-eyed observers lie about 3D-vision.
