Double Slit Experiment Debunked

hahaha I love Bill

This guy.

He makes me so happy.

Watch and be amazed as Bill Gaede debunks the double slit experiment with a laser pointer, a piece of cork, and a sewing needle.

Here is the double slit experiment.

Here is Bill blowing up that theory like a WWII battleship taking out a rowboat:


Here's a play list of his videos:
www.youtube.com...

Here's a long list of findings that debunk Einstein's nonsensical theories:
fascistsoup.com...

Maybe i'm wrong, but I did'nt think the Double Slit experiment had anything to do with Photons bouncing off the slits...

I'm confused. A needle has a slit at the top of it where the laser is pointed so that it can be threaded. Why is he acting like this object is solid, as is shown in the slide Nevermind. I see it's in the middle, and he states it's pointed at the body, rather than the eye. My bad.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by grantbeed
Maybe i'm wrong, but I did'nt think the Double Slit experiment had anything to do with Photons bouncing off the slits...

There are two ways standard theorists account for the double slit experiment.

In particle theory, bouncing particles are described.

In wave theory, self-interfering waves are described.

Bill talks about both ways and why neither way can account for the needle experiment.



[edit on 28-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

you cant debunk the double slit experiment without collecting data about where particles collide with the background.

as in, the original experiment displays that there is a wave like function to photons as they pass through the slits and collide with the back. with just a laser and some slits, we have no historical data, nor any controls, to demonstrate what he is trying to say.

reply to post by mnemeth1


OK. I'll admit, this stuff boggles my brain!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8beb51f33782.jpg[/atsimg]

Does he explain this image above?

g

[edit on 28-4-2010 by grantbeed]

It would be good... If the creator knew quantum physics. If he did, then why is he attacking the primary proof of it... with things that have nothing to do with quantum physics.

?

The theory is that when electrons pass through the slits at a random angle, they interfere with themselves, causing an interference pattern instead of a directly produced, double slitted light pattern.

Plus... Isn't the beam of a laser pointer a bit wider than a needle?

Fail.

God- Not debunked, IMHO.(varies from person to person, but I think we can agree that this is not going to bring the walls of religion crashing down at the feet of those who see it.)

reply to post by grantbeed


Yeah, the reality of the situation is that you don't need two slits, you only need the center post.

In Bill's theory (which may or may not be correct, its simply MORE correct than quantum theory), the atoms of the center post excite and give off light themselves and it is this interconnectedness that generates the interference patterns.

double slit experiment were an explanation for the wave nature of the light.. it basically says light has a wave nature to it as well... So light isn't just photons.. but also waves... but he was trying to debunk explanations to the experiment given by physicists in support of the particle nature of ligth..

A laser pointer is NOT natural light It's created as successive waves of light, and what makes it a laser is that all the variance is taken out! This disproves nothing except that a LASER POINTER doesn't have particles floating around...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
A laser pointer is NOT natural light

It's created as successive waves of light, and what makes it a laser is that all the variance is taken out! This disproves nothing except that a LASER POINTER doesn't have particles floating around...

Natural light is not what is used, monochromatic light is what is used for double slit experiments.

What he is failing to realize is that the needle (or post) in the middle is splitting the light into two coherent sources of light. ie. Light on the left side of the needle, and light on the right side of the needle.

These two coherent sources of light now act as their own individual laser sources once they pass the needle.

Now we have the left light (lets call it laser 1), and the right side light (laser 2).

The light from laser 1, once passed the needle, begins to act as the waves do, and the waves begin interfering with the laser 2 light, which is doing the same. Because the wavelength of the light, and the distance the light is traveling is the same, you will get the perfect interference pattern seen on the wall, and the reason for the very bright bands where the waves are experiencing constructive interference, and the dark bands where the light is experiencing destructive interference.

One has to remember the wave-particle duality.

The "propagation" of light is governed by its wave properties. The "energy exchange" of light is governed by its particle properties.

it still does not debunk anything other than his understanding of particle physics.

reply to post by xmaddness


No, he's not failing to account for this.

In fact, he's pointing out that his theory accounts for this while quantum theory does not.

That's the entire point of his video.

reply to post by mnemeth1


This is correct. Double, single, and multiple slit experiments are done using "monochromatic sources with the same frequency and constant phase relations", aka a diode laser most commonly with a wavelength of around 670 nm.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by xmaddness]

reply to post by mnemeth1


There isn't any real "quantum" involvement to this particular scenario when it comes to diffraction patterns.

The "quantum" portion of this is when you involve an observer which collapses the wave to the particle. That collapsing when observations are made is what pushes this into the quantum realm. Once observations are made, and the wave collapses, the only way to explain the result is through superposition. This... is when it become quantum.

A simple diffraction pattern is not really quantum per say.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by xmaddness]

I don't think you get the big picture the very act of observing changed the outcome of the experiment so the observer and the observie are both aware of eachother.

I dont really know but you for sure cant prove what your standing for with out a shadow of a doubt in my opinion your wrong and im going to leave it at that.

reply to post by xmaddness


Its a blatant interference pattern.

Diffraction in lasers occurs in gases, not solid objects.

yeah. I think I ll stick with Hiesenberg on this one. i think the term "debunked" is not only incredibly misleading from the OP; but miserably failing to face the fact that this experiment has been repeated multiple times. Maybe we should nt always use Youtube as our primary source of education, mayhaps?

Originally posted by NorthByNorthWest
I don't think you get the big picture the very act of observing changed the outcome of the experiment so the observer and the observie are both aware of eachother.

I dont really know but you for sure cant prove what your standing for with out a shadow of a doubt in my opinion your wrong and im going to leave it at that.

No, your talking about something you don't fully understand.

When scientists claim the "act of observing" collapses the wave pattern, they don't tell you about the detector itself which measures EM waves and modifies the wave function of the light.

If you stuck your eyeball next to the double slit it wouldn't collapse the wave function. The "act of observing" is only "collapsing" the wave function because of what the detector itself is doing to detect the particle.