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.

 

Double Slit Experiment Debunked

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There is nothing in quantum theory that can account for the interference pattern of laser light around a solid object.


Hi mnemeth

I think things are getting a little mixed up here.

The 'strange' quantum effect in the double split experiment is when single photons are used. With multiple photons the pattern can be explained with diffraction.

What we are seeing in the pin and laser experiment is simple barrier defraction. I suggest you look up the work of Fresnel and to a lesser extent Fraunhofer.

It is good to question however...




posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There is nothing in quantum theory that can account for the interference pattern of laser light around a solid object.


Hi mnemeth

I think things are getting a little mixed up here.

The 'strange' quantum effect in the double split experiment is when single photons are used. With multiple photons the pattern can be explained with diffraction.

What we are seeing in the pin and laser experiment is simple barrier defraction. I suggest you look up the work of Fresnel and to a lesser extent Fraunhofer.

It is good to question however...



I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this before it sinks in.

Fraunhofer diffraction might be able to explain the single slit experiment, but even at that, the equations themselves assume lensing effects to plane out the wave function before it arrives at the slit. However, such diffraction can not account for why we see interference patterns around solid objects such as his needle experiment.

en.wikipedia.org...

Fresnel diffraction does not produce interference patterns such as observed in the needle and slit experiments.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this before it sinks in.


I didn't bother looking at your links to be honest. I do this sort of thing for a living.

Here is a quote from Hyperphysics...


The diffraction pattern produced by monochromatic light and an opaque edge includes light which penetrates into the geometric shadow and an alternating pattern of bright and dark fringes outside the shadow


Here is the link Hyperphysics

Here is a photo of a diffraction pattern from an edge, like the edge of a needle: Hyperphysics

With non monocromatic light like that from a semi laser, you get a more smeared pattern like shown in the video.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 





With non monocromatic light like that from a semi laser, you get a more smeared pattern like shown in the video.


From the source you quoted earlier - Hyperphysics: "Monochromatic. Laser light consists of essentially one wavelength, having its origin in stimulated emission from one set of atomic energy levels."
Lasers are monochromatic light sources. what other monochromatic light source is there? What is a "semi laser"?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
From the source you quoted earlier - Hyperphysics: "Monochromatic. Laser light consists of essentially one wavelength, having its origin in stimulated emission from one set of atomic energy levels."
Lasers are monochromatic light sources. what other monochromatic light source is there? What is a "semi laser"?


Sorry I should have written 'semiconductor' laser, not semi as in 'half'. See my earlier post on the spectral width of semiconductor lasers.

Gas lasers such HeNe have a very narrow spectral width but cannot be considered truly monocromatic.

Monocromatic when used as in Hyperphysics mean 'very nearly' monocromatic, hence the 'essentially'.


[edit on 29/4/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this before it sinks in.


I didn't bother looking at your links to be honest. I do this sort of thing for a living.

Here is a quote from Hyperphysics...


The diffraction pattern produced by monochromatic light and an opaque edge includes light which penetrates into the geometric shadow and an alternating pattern of bright and dark fringes outside the shadow


Here is the link Hyperphysics

Here is a photo of a diffraction pattern from an edge, like the edge of a needle: Hyperphysics

With non monocromatic light like that from a semi laser, you get a more smeared pattern like shown in the video.




No buddy, that doesn't explain the WHY of barrier diffraction.

WHY are interference patterns generated? That describes their characteristics, it doesn't tell me why such a wave pattern exists in the first place.


[edit on 29-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


Lets assume for a moment that the light source meets your requirements and the experiment is duplicated. What then?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


Lets assume for a moment that the light source meets your requirements and the experiment is duplicated. What then?


With a nearly monocromatic light source you still get the pattern but with crisper edges. It is more smeared with a more cromatic source.

You can produce nearly the same results using a single edge. Ive just done this with the edge of a utility knife blade and got a couple of visible peaks to the left of the main laser dot and a whole series to the right.

I don't have any requirements for a light source - I was merely pointing out that semiconductor lasers aren't really classed as monocromatic - most think that all lasers are.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I like this a lot!
I always had a problem with the double slit. It always seemed like it wasn't covering all the bases.
Like, "you must believe this, because you cannot disprove this" kind of deal.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I'm not gonna chime in trying to act like i know all about quantum physics from wikipedia, but i will give you my intuition and some reasons for why this seems very very not likely to be worth putting energy into.

1. Your source is a youtube video.

2. The experiment itself seems so simple that i think it higly unlikely that this behaviour is not well known by scientists.

3. Well i guess it really needs some scientific acknowledgement before i'll find it interesting. I'm no mathematician etc.

You keep asking for "why's". Why is the eternal question. There's no answer to why.

I guess science seeks "why's", but what it really does is discovering "how's". There are also no explanation for gravity for example. Nowhere does it say WHY there is gravity. So why are you standing on your 2 feet stuck to the ground ? You don't why, you can say gravity, but that's just another word for ;"I don't know, but i made up a fancy word for not having the slightest clue about it" when you truly look at the definition of why. Why is for philosophers and religious people. Quantum Physics especially has opened the eyes of scientists that not everything can be understood and deep down, i guess the best word to use for everything is . . Magic.

Your fighting over this is not necessary.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




Your vague explanation doesn't cut it buddy.

I want a scientific paper showing how quantum theory can account for the findings.
Hmmm...ok, so that's how you're going to play the game...I seriously don't know why you people make threads, you don't want serious answers or truth, you want to push what you think is the truth onto others. Nice work, job well done. A+ grade.

Oh, and I'm sure there will soon be a scientific paper that clearly explains the results in the video...lets hope they get to it aye? Because that YouTube video surely threatens the entire foundation of quantum mechanics.
And my explanation was vague you say? How insulting. Was it because I used the word probability?

reply to post by JustAThought
 




2. The experiment itself seems so simple that i think it higly unlikely that this behaviour is not well known by scientists.
Exactly...there is still a lot we don't know about Quantum Mechanics, but we do understand a reasonable deal of it. A lot of our technology operates on quantum principles, including even the laser used in the video.

[edit on 30/4/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


If you want something that threatens the entire foundation of Einstein's ridiculous version of reality look no further.

fascistsoup.com...

Here's a few dozen papers demonstrating the failures of Einstein.

Bill Gaede's video is simply one more nail in the coffin of Einsteinian failures.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I had a look at the link you presented, and I read "Stephen Crothers: Why Black Holes Don’t Exist"...that was pretty much as far as I got...but I agree that Einstein wasn't completely right in all his theories...but he is correct with a lot of them and some just need a little tweaking...but I've always had problems with a few things, specifically having to do with light...however, a lot of Einsteins work doesn't really involve quantum mechanics per se...and I hardly think we can argue that E doesn't equal MC squared...now, I just had a little read through the article...it basically points out the following:

- Flaws with gravity and supposed gravity waves
- Flaws with the formation of our universe
- Flaws with the cosmic speed limit (speed of light)
- Flaws with certain celestial structures that defy known physics
- Since black-holes and dark-matter can't be "seen", even though we can detect the effects of them, they are "flawed" theories.

That's pretty much the gist of it...it hardly proves Einstein was wrong...it proves he may have been wrong about few things and his theories need touching up to account for certain phenomena in our universe...furthermore, it's basically pointing out areas of science which are currently under development and study, science obviously doesn't have ALL the answers....and some of the theorizing will be wrong, and I agree completely, I don't believe the big bang theory comes even close to telling the whole story, I don't believe we have an advanced understanding our universe and how it was formed...and I believe there are various aspects of reality which science is unable to detect at present...nothing truly is what it seems on the surface IMO...I don't believe dark mater exist either, I have another theory which I wont get into.

But, I'm not about to question whether black-holes are real or not...they are very real, no matter how little we understand them...their presence and location can be directly pin-pointed, and their effects can be directly studied. However, Dark-matter is completely different, it's an unknown and uniform force throughout our universe which can't be pinned-down or a source located...hence, I'm inclined to believe there is another, and more subtle explanation...I can definitely see where you're coming from and why you have the attitude towards science that you have, but I really suggest you learn more about science before you start trying to debunk it all. There are some really good university lectures on YouTube available free for anyone. Peace.

EDIT: The link you provided also seems to advocate the Electric Universe Theory quite a lot. It seems like quite an interesting theory, which I've heard of, but haven't read into...this seems like a good source of information for anyone interested: www.electricuniverse.info...

The Electric Universe theory argues that electricity plays a more important role in the Universe, than is generally accepted (see also "Electricity throughout the Universe").

As a theory, it offers explanations of various natural and astrophysical phenomena, some of which it claims are better understood without the need for various ad hoc explanations. As with any theory, the Electric Universe makes predictions that have been tested, and is published in both peer-reviewed papers, and popular books.


[edit on 30/4/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No buddy, that doesn't explain the WHY of barrier diffraction.


No it doesn't explain the mechanism behind the way diffraction works. That is a bit beyond this forum.

You should retitle your thread because the common understanding of the 'Double Slit Experiment' is the single photon thing, whereas the video is about diffraction.

Demonstrating diffraction with a laser and a needle demonstrates nothing that hasnt been known for hundreds of years.

I had a look at the fascistsoup site and whilst it may point out some valid flaws in our current understanding, that doesnt mean the whole of Relativity and QM is invalid. They are certainly not 'rediculous' theories as you keep mentioning. Both are models of the world and can explain much of what we measure and make accurate predictions of many phenomena.

Of course our current theories will be replaced with better, more accurate theories in the future but I would guess they aren't going to come from the people on fascistsoup.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 



I had a look at the fascistsoup site and whilst it may point out some valid flaws in our current understanding, that doesnt mean the whole of Relativity and QM is invalid. They are certainly not 'rediculous' theories as you keep mentioning. Both are models of the world and can explain much of what we measure and make accurate predictions of many phenomena.

Of course our current theories will be replaced with better, more accurate theories in the future but I would guess they aren't going to come from the people on fascistsoup.
Well said.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
This guy's videos don't really impress me. They make me feel foolish for thinking he's a total crackpot.

I don't know what his problem is but he can't seem to differentiate between the idea that is a line, and what we use to represent it on paper. While the representation that we see does in fact have geometric properties the actual idea of the line has no dimensions.

He rather viciously attacks some of these theories and comes off sounding like, well, an idiot to me. I don't pretend to be a "Mathematician", but I also don't think that this guy really has a full understanding of some of the concepts that he seems to be at odds with, I suppose. I may watch a couple more and change my mind later but he appears to be a kook.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Wow OP. You must really hate quantum and Einsteinian physics, just based on your total glee at finding some random YouTube video that tries and fails to "debunk" the double slit experiment. Using words like "love", "happy", "amazed" and "blowing up that theory like a WWII battleship taking out a rowboat".

With that level of enthusiasm and total, immediate, blind acceptance of something that obviously fits with the way that apparently YOU think the universe works, I am certainly not going to waste any time pointing out the truth or trying to have a logical debate about the matter. You obviously have your mind made up, and are more than "happy" to try and bend others minds to your way of thinking. Good luck with that.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No buddy, that doesn't explain the WHY of barrier diffraction.


No it doesn't explain the mechanism behind the way diffraction works. That is a bit beyond this forum.

You should retitle your thread because the common understanding of the 'Double Slit Experiment' is the single photon thing, whereas the video is about diffraction.

Demonstrating diffraction with a laser and a needle demonstrates nothing that hasnt been known for hundreds of years.

I had a look at the fascistsoup site and whilst it may point out some valid flaws in our current understanding, that doesnt mean the whole of Relativity and QM is invalid. They are certainly not 'rediculous' theories as you keep mentioning. Both are models of the world and can explain much of what we measure and make accurate predictions of many phenomena.

Of course our current theories will be replaced with better, more accurate theories in the future but I would guess they aren't going to come from the people on fascistsoup.



To both of you - yes, it does mean the whole of QM is invalid.

That is the way science works.

When a theory fails a test, you throw out the theory.

Einstein has failed over and over and over again.


As to the title - QM can not explain the interference pattern generated by the needle experiment.

No one in here has yet shown me an explanation using quantum mechanics. It can not be done, and Bill's video is perfectly valid for the point he is making.



[edit on 30-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blazer
Wow OP. You must really hate quantum and Einsteinian physics, just based on your total glee at finding some random YouTube video that tries and fails to "debunk" the double slit experiment. Using words like "love", "happy", "amazed" and "blowing up that theory like a WWII battleship taking out a rowboat".

With that level of enthusiasm and total, immediate, blind acceptance of something that obviously fits with the way that apparently YOU think the universe works, I am certainly not going to waste any time pointing out the truth or trying to have a logical debate about the matter. You obviously have your mind made up, and are more than "happy" to try and bend others minds to your way of thinking. Good luck with that.


You must be a math fanatic.

And yes, I do have my mind made up about Einstein and his nonsensical theories.

Do you believe a star can spin around on its axis at 66,000 times per minute?

please.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Loki
 

Ah, I think that might be the OP. He has a link to Fascist Soup in his signature.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join