ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags quantum mechanics

Reply
Old 9th September 2019, 04:45 PM   #201
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
A "Reality Check hasn't disproven a single thing" delusion

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
Reality Check hasn't disproven a single thing.
10 September 2019pittsburghjoe: A "Reality Check hasn't disproven a single thing" delusion.
I have proved and documented that your theory is deeply ignorant about a lot of physics.
You have proved that your theory is utterly useless because you cannot answer questions about textbook experiments.
You have proved that your theory is just ignorance, fantasies and incoherent word salad. No physics. One equation !

6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: What does your theory predict for the single electron double slit experiment?
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Quote the single electron double slit experiment part of your original OP.
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Where in your theory are quaternions used (citation or quotation needed) [or say you wasted our time with an irrelevant video]?
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: There is no "abbe diffraction limit of matter".
9 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Repeats ignorance and/or fantasies about the delayed choice quantum eraser.
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: A delusion that random dots are seen in the double slit experiment.
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Deep ignorance about probability in QM and the double slit experiment.
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: More of his ignorant gibberish with no physics or even math !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:46 PM   #202
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
I don't need different equations because the current ones aren't going to give different results. We just aren't looking at them correctly. If you agree with this everything else falls into place:

Quantum objects are either waves OR physical while traveling from point A to B. Uncertainty is for waves, not physical objects. The final panel of a quantum experiment does not influence the state of a particle flying towards it. Because of this, you do not get to claim a particle was wave and physical at the same time.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:50 PM   #203
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down The obvious statement that position and momentum can be found

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
It just states that position and momentum can both be found if the quantum sized object is observed.
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: The obvious statement that position and momentum can be found but actually ignorance about his one made up equation !

He made up "Delta x Delta p = h-bar/2" which should be about uncertainties in measuring position x and momentum p.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:53 PM   #204
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
You're not contributing anything to this thread, please go away.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:00 PM   #205
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down Random post with a "I don't need different equations..." delusion

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
I don't need different equations ....
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Random post with a "I don't need different equations..." delusion.
The delusion is that the current equations can be used when he is claiming that they are wrong !
The uncertainty principle is a derivation from the equations of QM. If the uncertainty principle is wrong then the equations of QM are wrong!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:03 PM   #206
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
You're not contributing anything to this thread, please go away.
I am contributing a record of the uselessness of your "theory" and evidence that it is an ignorant fantasy. The "theory" is a fantasy about unobserved quantum particles.
On the other hand, QM is a working scientific theory of observed and unobserved quantum particles.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:07 PM   #207
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
The uncertainty principle is correct ..if you use it for waves.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:17 PM   #208
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
The uncertainty principle is correct ..if you use it for waves.
Usual abysmal ignorance. The uncertainty principle is for particles: "a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:23 PM   #209
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
Uncertainty is for waves, not physical objects.
It is pretty much the other way around. The waves are perfectly deterministic.

The uncertainty principle applies to observations of particle properties like position and momentum.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:24 PM   #210
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
I refuse to explain this yet again
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:31 PM   #211
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
I refuse to explain this yet again
You haven't explained it the first time.

You have just made a series of unsupported claims.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:37 PM   #212
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
I refuse to explain this yet again
I mean, seriously ... you are claiming that the uncertainty principle applies to waves and not to particles, and you think that it is just enough to state that?

I can't imagine what such a claim would even mean.

As I said, the wave function is deterministic. The uncertainty principle applies to observations of particle properties like position and momentum. I don't think that is controversial.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:45 PM   #213
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
Unsupported because I'm first person to realize what we are overlooking.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:48 PM   #214
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
Unsupported because I'm first person to realize what we are overlooking.
I mean unsupported by any skerrick of evidence, reasoning, mathematics or even a clear explanation of what you are talking about.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:51 PM   #215
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
I can't explain it any simpler, if anyone here had a open mind for one f'n minute they might see what I'm pointing at.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:54 PM   #216
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
I can't explain it any simpler, if anyone here had a open mind for one f'n minute they might see what I'm pointing at.
Not looking for a simpler explanation.

Looking for an explanation, full stop.

In standard QM waves are deterministic and the uncertainty principle applies to particle properties like position and momentum.

You want to turn this on its head and make the uncertainty principle about waves without even the beginning of an explanation of how that would work or what it could mean.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:01 PM   #217
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Can I confirm also that it is prediction of your theory that in the double slit experiment when there is nothing to detect which slit the electron passes through, the interference pattern cannot be a function of any particle properties like momentum and position?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:13 PM   #218
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
I didn't say that. You are free to get wave properties from the stopped particle if it was a wave while it traveled. Everything I have been talking about is if something causes the particle to decohere or not before it ends.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:19 PM   #219
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
I didn't say that. You are free to get wave properties from the stopped particle if it was a wave while it traveled. Everything I have been talking about is if something causes the particle to decohere or not before it ends.
That is not what I said. What I am saying is that a function that predicts the interference pattern when there is no detector cannot depend on any particle properties in your theory.

Just as the function that predicts the probability that a particle will end at a certain location when there is a detector to tell which slit it has passed through cannot depend upon any wave properties.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:20 PM   #220
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,784
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
I can't explain it any simpler, if anyone here had a open mind for one f'n minute they might see what I'm pointing at.
Where's the math? You could shut every one of us up immediately if you present the math.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:22 PM   #221
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
I am reading the text by Richard Feynman mentioned above and he claims that the probability that a particle will land at a particular point at the back panel depends upon probability amplitudes, both with and without detectors to tell which slit the electron passes through.

If your theory is correct then Feynman must be wrong about that.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:26 PM   #222
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I am reading the text by Richard Feynman mentioned above and he claims that the probability that a particle will land at a particular point at the back panel depends upon probability amplitudes, both with and without detectors to tell which slit the electron passes through.

If your theory is correct then Feynman must be wrong about that.
He is wrong, as I already told you. The prediction of a giant clump doesn't count as a probability. That is ridiculous
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:27 PM   #223
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Where's the math? You could shut every one of us up immediately if you present the math.
The current equations still apply except you now have to ask each one if observation is considered.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:32 PM   #224
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
He is wrong, as I already told you. The prediction of a giant clump doesn't count as a probability. That is ridiculous
Right.

Bearing in mind this is Richard Feynman who is allegedly wrong and ridiculous.

Also bear in mind that Richard Feynman was writing long before the experiment had actually been performed with detectors in place and this was the mathematics he used to predict that the interference pattern would be lost with detectors in place and that the experimental results bore out his predictions, using this mathematics.

But, yes, OK, that mathematics, experimentally verified, is wrong and you don't have any alternative mathematics and only the claim that probability can only lead to little "clumps" and not big "clumps".
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 9th September 2019 at 06:34 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:34 PM   #225
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,784
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
The current equations still apply except you now have to ask each one if observation is considered.
Please demonstrate.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:38 PM   #226
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
The current equations still apply except you now have to ask each one if observation is considered.
You have just said that Richard Feynman's equations are wrong and ridiculous and now you are claiming the wrong and ridiculous equations still apply?

Also, with the current equations you have to ask if observation is considered, so you obviously don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of what those equations are.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:40 PM   #227
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
The uncertainty principle obviously doesn't consider observed particles.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:45 PM   #228
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
The uncertainty principle obviously doesn't consider observed particles.
Sure, the principle which is about the observation of particles obviously doesn't consider observed particles. Makes plenty of sense.

And Richard Feynman's calculations which he used to predict that the interference pattern would be lost with detectors to tell you which slit the particle passed through are wrong and ridiculous

And you don't need to supply any alternate maths because the current allegedly wrong and ridiculous maths still applies.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:50 PM   #229
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
show me uncertainty with observed traveling particles.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:00 PM   #230
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down Ignorance and delusions about a "giant clump" and probability

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
The prediction of a giant clump doesn't count as a probability.
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Ignorance and delusions about a "giant clump" and probability.
QM does not predict any "giant clump" for the double slit experiment. QM predicts what is seen in the double slit experiment - an interference pattern or two bands !

A prediction of particles forming two bands because there is a high probability that each particle will be detected within those 2 bands does count as probability!

Under the Copenhagen interpretation, there is basically no probability for the two band case. The measurement of which silt the particle went through collapsed the wave function (N.B. this is not an equation for an actual wave as pittsburghjoe seems to imagine) to a definite state of momentum. The particle then goes in a straight line to the detector screen. Particles passing thru 2 slits thus form 2 bands at the screen. There is none of the "particle acting as if it went through both slits" concept that we see in the interference pattern case. There will however be uncertainty in the particle momentum - the bands will not be perfect.

Double-slit experiment
Quote:
In 2012, researchers at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln performed the double-slit experiment with electrons as described by Richard Feynman, using new instruments that allowed control of the transmission of the two slits and the monitoring of single-electron detection events. Electrons were fired by an electron gun and passed through one or two slits of 62 nm wide 4 μm tall.[52]
Controlled double-slit electron diffraction
Quote:
Double-slit diffraction is a corner stone of quantum mechanics. It illustrates key features of quantum mechanics: interference and the particle-wave duality of matter. In 1965, Richard Feynman presented a thought experiment to show these features. Here we demonstrate the full realization of his famous thought experiment. By placing a movable mask in front of a double-slit to control the transmission through the individual slits, probability distributions for single- and double-slit arrangements were observed. Also, by recording single electron detection events diffracting through a double-slit, a diffraction pattern was built up from individual events.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th September 2019 at 07:03 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:04 PM   #231
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
super helpful as always
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:05 PM   #232
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down A "uncertainty principle obviously doesn't consider observed particles" delusion

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
The uncertainty principle obviously doesn't consider observed particles.
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: A "uncertainty principle obviously doesn't consider observed particles" delusion.
The uncertainty principle applies to particles whether observed or not observed.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:08 PM   #233
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
No pittsburghjoe is not claiming that the two band pattern is a wave, I am.

I am getting this from the first chapter of Richard Feyman's "Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals"

The detection of the slit that the particle passes through does not collapse the wave, it removes the interference between the two alternative paths.

Again, I am not claiming expertise, I am just reading what he wrote.

Feynman uses probability amplitudes to derive the probabilities on the back panel in both the cases with and without the detector to tell which slit the electron passes through.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 9th September 2019 at 07:37 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:22 PM   #234
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
show me uncertainty with observed traveling particles.
Feynman has an example in the same book I am talking about.

He describes a double slit experiment in which the screen with the slits is allowed to slide a little up and down and a detector picks this up.

If the detector is sensitive enough to detect momentum so that the position data is less certain and we could not accurately detect the position of the hole within the limits described by the HUP then there is an interference pattern.

If the detector is not sensitive enough to detect the momentum so that the position data is more certain then we can determine the position of the hole accurately enough to use this information along with the particles final position to determine which hole it went through then the coherence between the alternative paths is lost, ie no interference pattern.

This is enough to show that travelling observed particles obey the HUP.

(Edit - I just noticed that Reality Check had already mentioned this)
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 9th September 2019 at 07:27 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:25 PM   #235
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
You aren't going to mention what I have been screaming this entire time? The final panel doesn't count for anything. The experiment is flawed.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:28 PM   #236
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
You aren't going to mention what I have been screaming this entire time? The final panel doesn't count for anything.
We have not only been mentioning it, we have been asking you to explain it
Quote:
The experiment is flawed.
How is the experiment flawed?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:31 PM   #237
pittsburghjoe
Muse
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 591
If you have to rely on the final panel for anything, it means the particle was a wave experiment. It wasn't quantum observed.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:31 PM   #238
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,784
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
If you have to rely on the final panel for anything, it means the particle was a wave experiment. It wasn't quantum observed.
Please describe a better experiment.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:32 PM   #239
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
The experiment, as Feynman describes it, is all about how to calculate the probabilities of particles hitting the back panel.

He made certain predictions based on the model and, when technology allowed us to perform the experiment, those predictions were borne out.

In what way was that flawed?

If you want to make a point that does not involve the back panel, then devise your own experiment without a back panel and make whatever predictions you please.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:34 PM   #240
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
If you have to rely on the final panel for anything, it means the particle was a wave experiment. It wasn't quantum observed.
Again, devise a better experiment and make your predictions.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.