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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.


Wow. Seriously that statement made my brain hurt.

You really think that if something goes wrong with an experiment it is just thrown out? You do not think that what these people have worked on get revised? As our technology progresses as do our experiments.

We reach a different understanding as we can perform more advanced experiments. We are constantly tweaking and re-evaluating to make the theories the best we can. No one comes up with a theory, and BOOM it works perfectly in every different situation, regardless of other perimeters. If this were the way science worked, we have achieved nothing thus far.

Please, I ask you to do some real research here. Stop relying on youtube videos and one site to back up your theories. Do some science and research, study Einstein's theories and when you at least know them properly, it will be easier for you to understand that they actually have a backbone to stand on.

Pred...

Here's some recent articles about Einstein being proved right. Wow, imagine that.

Space.com

More

You can even find it on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3-5-2010 by predator0187]




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


That experiment doesn't prove relativity is correct. It only proves that the relativity is correct within the context of the experiment. Relativity still fails to account for many observations.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


Relativity still fails to account for many observations.

Such as? Could you please supply some examples?

Or perhaps our electric-universe prophet can oblige us with a few?



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
this guy is either an idiot or disinfo, hes tryin hard to derail us from the point, the main point (as a few ats members knew already, i am proud to say that of them.) is that the particle behaved as a wave UNTIL it was observed, the observation of its exisgtence changed its existence, very significante,

Plus this thread is identical to one i already replied to on fascistsoup.com

he posted "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...."...etc.


and i replied.

"this is dis info tactics, this experiment gives light to the hidden nature to our reality, that is, it’s an illusion, this is the first experiment that can prove it.

bottom line is this, the particle creates a wave pattern interference after passing through the double slits, and hitting the board confusing the scientist they decide to observe the particle as it passes through the slits, this time the particle hits the board and makes a solid particle pattern with no wave interference, the only difference is that they observed, their observing changed existence and this is a repeatable experiment.

THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE, dont ever forget it, cause they are trying hard to cover it up, play it down, and use disinfo like this to make us forget that they figured this out, more power for them if we dont figure out our control over existence itself.

Bill Gaede doesnt know what he’s talking about, both your sources are way off base, bill doesnt address the most important part and makes no point about whatever he does say, and your source for the double slit experiment also doesnt even mention the most important part of the experiment, this is how dis-info infects the science world.
from physicsworld.com...

“The early generations of quantum physicists, led by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and John von Neumann, insisted that there is a strong division between the classical world and the quantum realm, although they conceded that the boundary is not fixed by the laws of physics. Their view was that the transformation into “classicality” is effected by the very act of observation; the idea being that the wavefunction “collapses” to a particular value when the observation takes place. To avoid the seemingly decisive role played by the observer, physicists” – (began coming up with any far out idea the could and when that failed they simplied lied to the public closed down particular websites that professed the truth, and put down in technical books that it must be because of an unknown anomaly they even go so far as to say the atmospher interfers, this makes no sense for one because we are only talking about the difference of observation of the particles passing through the slits, or not observing the pass. Condensing before the board or not is only caused by observing its passage through the slits. regardless of that this experiment has been done in a vaccum.)
the significance of this expirement and the motive behind censoring it with these disinfo tactics is that its one the most revolutionary findings ever, it proves beyond a doubt that our actual conciousness is the creater of all that we physical know to exist, this will lead pondering minds to realise we should be able to control the physical by thought, like a god, well this may very well be true if the effect between your concious recognition and the particle could learn to be sensed and controled. the government doesnt want us knowing that. "

and as for his only defence thus far to the observance change, i present a varriance on this experiment which proves that the observing device has nothing to do with the change inccured from observing the existence of matter itself. physicsworld.com...



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
sorry i didnt include the link from which this entire OP was copied word for word from and i also already replied on, fascistsoup.com...

also sorry for any spelling errors, meh im to lazy to edit and fix em



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Describing the rope hypothesis and the 'in phase' (constructive) and 'out of phase' (destructive) reaction of light (starting around 7:30 in the video) reminds me of the desired results for the Michelson-Morley experiment. It appears that this experiment, using a laser interferometer, was the attempt to find this same apparent reaction from light.

The object of the Michelson-Morley experiment was to find evidence for the Luminiferous Aether. Do you think that the result of the laser and needle experiment, and therefore the double slit experiment, might actually prove the existence of a Luminiferous Aether?



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by masterp
 


Relativity still fails to account for many observations.

Such as? Could you please supply some examples?

Or perhaps our electric-universe prophet can oblige us with a few?


sure.

here's a few

fascistsoup.com...



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Describing the rope hypothesis and the 'in phase' (constructive) and 'out of phase' (destructive) reaction of light (starting around 7:30 in the video) reminds me of the desired results for the Michelson-Morley experiment. It appears that this experiment, using a laser interferometer, was the attempt to find this same apparent reaction from light.

The object of the Michelson-Morley experiment was to find evidence for the Luminiferous Aether. Do you think that the result of the laser and needle experiment, and therefore the double slit experiment, might actually prove the existence of a Luminiferous Aether?


I think LaFreniere has the explanation figured out was to why the MM experiment failed.

Matter itself bends and contracts, not just the light.

Thus any attempt to measure using an interferometer will fail.

www.glafreniere.com...

[edit on 4-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
there are two descriptions of how such interference patterns are formed in quantum.

one is particle theory that says little balls bounce off the corners.

the other is wave theory that says waves passing through the slits interfere with each other.

neither wave nor particle explanations can account for why an interference pattern is seen when a laser is passed over a solid post, such as his needle.

waves pass around solid objects without creating an interference pattern.


I never heard the theory that particles would cause interference patterns (light and dark bands) until I watched the misguided video in the OP, but that doesn't make any sense. It's definitely explained by waves type behavior and the post on page 1 that explained why the needle does the same thing is confirmed by a wave simulator applet you can try yourself:

www.falstad.com...

Here are screenshots from the simulator first with the slit width narrow:


And with the slit width wide:


In case it's not obvious, when you make the slit widths wide enough, it's essentially like aiming the light at a solid object in the center, like a needle, if you ignore the effect from the outer edges. You still get wave patterns with a needle-like experiment using this wave simulator.

So the guy who made the video in the OP is pretty clueless thinking it's a particle effect, it's not, it's a wave effect. And none of this involves quantum mechanics. You need to invoke quantum mechanics to explain the more subtle aspects of the double slit experiment, like how an interference pattern can be generated by a single photon passing through two slits, but that's beyond the scope of the video in the OP.

So nothing has been debunked, just an embarrassing misunderstanding by the guy who made the OP video.

=====================

Regarding Facistsoup.com's assertion:
"The odds of quasar/galaxy quartet NGC 7603 being a random chance alignment are on the order of billions to one. However, NGC 7603 does not stand alone; dozens of other interacting objects have been observed."

I don't believe the odds of such an alignment are billions to one, and no math is provided to back up that assertion. Furthermore, even if the odds were say a million to one, there are over a hundred billion galaxies so finding many such alignments by chance would be a virtual certainty, statistically speaking.

And you can't seem to make up your mind about Einstein. Didn't you quote him as a supporter of your idea that black holes don't make sense? And after using him in an appeal to authority argument saying Einstein thinks there aren't black holes, then you turn around and say Einstein is wrong?

I'll agree with you to an extent that Einstein is probably wrong in the same way that Newton was "wrong", in that we've found cases where Newtonian physics doesn't explain everything, so Einstein elaborated on Newtonian physics to make it more accurate, and I think someone will elaborate on Einstein's physics to make it more accurate also. But I'm not sure I would say Newton or Einstein are completely wrong, just not completely right perhaps, but mostly right in both cases.

I think a lot of questions raised on that site will be answered with more accurate measurement technology, which is being introduced all the time.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I understand that the laser interferometer experiment basically did not work, yet they are still being built and used today with the same null results. From these early experiments I would infer that the Aether cannot be measured by simply turning this device, it is not a matter of "relative motion". I believe that it can, however, be measured by accelerating, it is a matter of resisting accelerations, yet we call this inertia.

From your link.

Michelson was expecting a phase shift. Waves would add themselves constructively or destructively, showing a characteristic interference pattern. The goal was to measure the fringes displacement after a 90° rotation.

No interference fringes were measured after a 90° rotation of the interferometer. The laser and needle experiment in your video, however, is showing interference patterns. Could this be considered a simplified version of the laser interferometer?



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Loki
 

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


I don't think he is the guy in the video but Michael Nemeth owns the fascistsoup domain under the name of United Fascist Auto Union of Amerika.

You have got to give it to the guy, he is passionate about what he believes.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I came across this thread by chance

interesting subject
Funny video

Not trying to open old sores...
Also I hope the OP doesn't take offense to this statement however this video only supports the argument that the double slit experiments is infact correct.

You see the thing that you and Bill (the guy in the video) are overlooking is that it doesn't matter if it's two slits or a single barrier like the needle that is used in the video
...the light or photons/particles if you prefer, are still only being given two paths
...and the end result is an interference pattern

One more thing
you made the statement that Einstein's theory failed however it was Niels Bohr not Einstein
...as far as I am aware Einstein never liked the results of the double slit experiment 

For the record
...I don't like the results of the double slit experiment myself. 
It literally defies logic, but the results are infact undeniable

Anyway hope that clears things up for you
edit on 15-11-2015 by disk4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-11-2015 by disk4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: mnemeth1

you need a laser with tem mode oo, not a laser pointer. so it's not debunked



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW!



Everyone watch it, lol!

But notice that the photons, at one point, are shot ONE AT A TIME. They can't bounce off of one another. I know I'm late to the party and I'm still reading the thread and I'm sure some of you have seen this vid but for anyone who wants to understand... this vid is pretty easy to get.

I love these kinds of subjects.

(vid working?)
edit on 7-1-2016 by geezlouise because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
omg I just noticed this thread was from 5 yrs ago. Now I feel really late to the party.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: michealjandrew

Your post history consists of just this message. Spam much?



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW!
...
(vid working?)
To embed a video only post the part of the link AFTER the equals sign. Only post the whole link like you did if not embedding.

If you apply the logic in that video, my thanksgiving turkey which had been cooking in the oven for over 4 hours was still somehow aware it was being observed, because the observer effect still had an effect on the dead turkey.

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior, and on to even greater nonsense.
are not really very insightful at all and are just based on misconceptions about the observer effect.

Or do you think the turkey was really aware after being cooked in the oven for 4 hours, and that's why it responded to being measured by the meat thermometer, especially the fat one that acted like a big heat sink?

Of course this example of the observer effect doesn't involve any fundamental consciousness any more than the example of the observer effect in the video you posted, nor do the principles of quantum mechanics suggest that we can summon the spirit of a 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior as "What the Bleep do we know" suggests.

What we have is an entire field of woo by people who don't understand quantum mechanics invoking it to explain their ideas about "magic".

Quantum woo

Quantum woo is the justification of irrational beliefs by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics...

The logical process runs something like this:

I want magic to exist.
I don't understand quantum.
Therefore, quantum could mean magic exists.
The logic in the video you posted isn't exactly that, but it's pretty close.


originally posted by: geezlouise
omg I just noticed this thread was from 5 yrs ago. Now I feel really late to the party.
michaeljandrew necrobumped it before you did, but there's nothing wrong with a necrobump as long as you don't expect a reply. Once in a while, some old threads come back to life after a necrobump.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well idk anything about quantum woo.

I just thought the 5 minute lecture that explains the double slit experiment helps to visualize and understand what was being tested. Is light made up of tiny particles called photons, or is it a wave, etc. and the experiment would lend credence towards light being both... and I know you know all of that so I'm unsure about this next thing.

Are turkey's made out of photons? Interesting, lol.
(where did that come from? lol)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
(where did that come from? lol)
It's the basis for the woo in the what the bleep do we know video you posted, that says something about the electrons being aware they're being observed because they're subject to the observer effect. I provided another example of the observer effect that's less quantum so people can see the observer effect for what it is, and it's not what the video implies.

The observer effect is the same idea on observing turkeys, electrons, or anything else where the mere act of observation can affect observational results such as checking tire pressure. It's no sign that what's being observed has any awareness it's being observed.

Observer Effect

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure.
So the what the bleep video could use the same logic to say the tire is aware it's being observed when someone check the tire pressure. It's just a stupid conclusion to draw from seeing that there's an observer effect, whether talking about tires, turkeys, photons or electrons, and just one example of the misleading things that bother physicists in the "What the Bleep" video.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join