It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by drsmooth23
thats great and all, and Ive seen enough on the double slit expirements to understand that scientists "believe" they are witnessing a photon jump through both slits, but I still think its a ricochet effect where the photon hits another photon and it "looks" like the same photon goes through both slits, causing the wave interference pattern.
You still think?
Think again.
They fire single particles, there is no way they can interfere with another particle.
There is no other explanation than that it goes through both slits, and interferes with itself. the particle is in superposition.
You can "think" what you want, but these are the facts.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If it's a gross interpretation, tell me where I'm wrong.
Skeptics will always use hyperbole over evidence.
It reminds me of a quote from Alfred Russel Wallace who was a spiritualist and biologist that worked on natural selection.
If it's a "gross" misinterpretation than provide some counter evidence.
And if there is, please present peer reviewed papers on these conclusions from the scientific community and not links to new age dogma.
Originally posted by drsmooth23
Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by drsmooth23
thats great and all, and Ive seen enough on the double slit expirements to understand that scientists "believe" they are witnessing a photon jump through both slits, but I still think its a ricochet effect where the photon hits another photon and it "looks" like the same photon goes through both slits, causing the wave interference pattern.
You still think?
Think again.
They fire single particles, there is no way they can interfere with another particle.
There is no other explanation than that it goes through both slits, and interferes with itself. the particle is in superposition.
You can "think" what you want, but these are the facts.
A coherent light source illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them
yeah, because theres NO POSSIBLE WAY photons are already in the room, right?... (I keep getting a funny picture in my head of a clumsy scientists trying to observe this in a totally dark room and he keeps bumping into stuff)
so your telling me the ONLY light in the room is coming from the experiment? No windows, no light bulbs? you understand the general nature of the photon right? Light scatters, defuses, reflects and refracts. Im not saying i know much, but I would imagine it would be like shooting a water gun underwater, you can do it, and you can measure it, but there stands to be a chance for interference I would imagine.
[edit on 8-12-2009 by drsmooth23]
We are all zombies who only act as if and think that we have consciousness. Source
Nothing is truly in supposition because these states were already determined a long time ago. Source
A conscious observer is never needed nor required by the universe. Source
Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment. A total superposition of the universal wavefunction still occurs, but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the problem of measurement. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states we perceive as determinant. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble". But within the framework of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, decoherence cannot explain this crucial step from an apparent mixture to the existence and/or perception of single outcomes.
However, decoherence by itself may not give a complete solution of the measurement problem, since all components of the wave function still exist in a global superposition, which is explicitly acknowledged in the many-worlds interpretation.
I'm sure they would have thought of this prior to setting up the experiment. This also doesn't explain how once the electron is measured, it behaves differently. Where is the interference then?
Feynman stressed that his formulation is merely a mathematical description, not an attempt to describe a real process that we cannot meassure.
Point B is now at the detector, and a new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears.
Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If it's a gross interpretation, tell me where I'm wrong.
Skeptics will always use hyperbole over evidence.
It reminds me of a quote from Alfred Russel Wallace who was a spiritualist and biologist that worked on natural selection.
If it's a "gross" misinterpretation than provide some counter evidence.
I am not a sceptic of the present facts quantum mechanics, however, you are saying you are presenting facts, when in reality you are presenting a conclusion based on your own assumption of the facts of QM. The thread title says QM shows there is life after death, when in fact it does no such thing and there have been no adamant conclusion of the nature of QM from scientists, let alone a conclusion on the nature of life after death.
And if there is, please present peer reviewed papers on these conclusions from the scientific community and not links to new age dogma.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by FlySolo
Point B is now at the detector, and a new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears.
I like how you omitted the first sentence before you snipped your Wikipedia evidence.
"When a detector is placed at one of the slits, the situation changes, and we now have a different point B."
The situation changes is the point I'm making. Why did you ignore this?
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by FlySolo
Point B is now at the detector, and a new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears.
I like how you omitted the first sentence before you snipped your Wikipedia evidence.
"When a detector is placed at one of the slits, the situation changes, and we now have a different point B."
The situation changes is the point I'm making. Why did you ignore this?
The thing with the experiments is that they don't honestly know how the interference is created. The Copenhagen interpretation is only meant to be a mathematical descriptor, not a real world application to any real physical event.
Originally posted by R-evolve
reply to post by oconnection
Whats set in stone for me is i now require proof and am cynical of extraordinary claims. I no longer believe what i would like to believe because i like the idea of it. People take comfort in certain beliefs but id rather be presented with cold hard facts regardless of the romance they may take out of life. Im open minded to new evidence i suppose though i wont kid myself id understand half of what im being presented with.
ohn Archibald Wheeler is one of those thinkers who takes the ideas of quantum mechanics seriously. After studying the Copenhagen explanation of the double slit experiment – with its emphasis on what the observer knows and when it is known – Wheeler realized that the observer's choice might control those variables in a test.
"If what you say is true," he said (in effect), "then I may choose to know a property after the event should already have taken place." Wheeler realized that in such a situation, the observer's choice would determine the outcome of the experiment – regardless of whether the outcome should logically have been determined long ago.
"Nonsense," said the reductionists. "Rubbish," said the materialists. "Completely absurd," said the naïve realists. "Yup," said the mathematicial.