For the First Time Ever, Scientists Watch an Atom's Electrons Moving in Real Time

reply to post by pepsi78


Well, none of your above three posts (not entirely sure if they were addressed at me) deals with my question, so my question still stands.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by pepsi78

 

Well, none of your above three posts (not entirely sure if they were addressed at me) deals with my question, so my question still stands.

The experiment was done with a photon ?
It produces the same result ? Same patern, it's just like the electron.
Or you may talk about something else ?
The part with the detector and the magnetic tape is a hoax, the detector left on with or without the recording tape would do the same, it would colapse the wave function. Recording the photon while it will pass the slit will have the same outcome as in not recording it but with the detector on because it is exposed to the detector and will just go like a marble straight.

The experiment has two confusing factors, one what slit did it chose, and second why the inteference part. When you want to see what slit in went on you don't get the second anomaly(the crossed wave) When you don't look at it you get the second anomaly the crossed wave.

So what part are you talking about, what hole did it chose, or the crossed pattern ?

reply to post by pepsi78


I am specifically talking about this experiment: grad.physics.sunysb.edu...

Not about the double slit experiment in general.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by pepsi78

 

I am specifically talking about this experiment: grad.physics.sunysb.edu...

Not about the double slit experiment in general.

How does a photon work, nobody proposed an acceptable explanation, this question remains unanswered, nobody is entitled to believe that photons really exist until it's solved.

Originally posted by -PLB-
In the experiment I posted they use a polarizer to erase the which way data. Do mirrors or fibers also polarize the photons? And if not, aren't we dealing with a paradox?

Both mirrors and fibers can be designed to polarize light. Under normal circumstances however they are designed to retain the transmission properties.

Though this is not a paradox however, it just proves that a conscious observer is required for matter to manifest.

In other words the whole universe is in a state of flux, until a consciousness observes it. At which point the wave functions collapse and all values are set.

The results are undeniable and the conclusion inescapable.

All the best,

Korg.
This is not new age mumbo jumbo as someone said it, this is Quantum Physics.

All the best,

reply to post by pepsi78


I find the explanation I proposed acceptable, as it eliminates the paradox. I don't like living in a world with paradoxes .

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I disagree on 2 points.

Firstly, if delaying of the photon does not erase the which way data, you have a paradox.

Secondly, the awareness of a third party is irrelevant. Like I already suggested, it is the photon itself that "knows" or that is "aware". But this is not awareness as in it has intelligence, but it is just a property of the photon itself. The amazing part though is that this property is manifested in the time dimension instead of the volume dimension, that makes it very hard to grasp for us. That is also what I mean with that we should see a photon as something that exists instantly. It is a 4 dimensional instance of a phenomena, that can not be manipulated.

Do you agree with these two points? If not, why not?

[edit on 8-8-2010 by -PLB-]

reply to post by -PLB-


You don't really think the photon has eyes
It's waves mate, waves interaction, welcome to the light "the real light this time" No bogus stuff, new age crap. I think just like you that humanity, at least a part of us deserve the truth. The world that we live in is pretty real to me. This with a conciosess observer has to look at it is just new age stuff, the sun makes the rules, it shines on earth so you can see things, not god tho, just the real light, part of god's rules. Twisting the truth in a long run will not do any good, anything you look at is just an energy wave.

I think I showed you enough evidence that the electron is a wave function.
The photon, we don't even know if it exists, this with the recording tape is just bogus and I don't buy into it.

The truth.

discovermagazine.com...
One of the year’s most remarkable motion pictures lasts just 3 seconds—and that’s after it has been slowed down a billion billion times. The film documents an electron in motion the instant after it was booted from an atom by an ultraviolet pulse. Created by an international team of physicists, the movie is the first of its kind.
Individual electrons move too quickly for ordinary cameras to capture in a clear image. But a new method that generates supershort bursts of laser light allowed researchers to nab a high-resolution shot of the elusive electron. Each flash of light lasted only an attosecond. To comprehend how brief that is, consider that one second contains about twice as many attoseconds as there are seconds in the 14-billion-year life of the universe, says physicist Johan Mauritsson of Lund University in Sweden, who led the study [subscription required]. An electron orbits a hydrogen atom in about 150 attoseconds.
Mauritsson speculates that his high-resolution camera might help physicists understand how electrons interact with each other, but he doesn’t have a specific research goal in mind. “We don’t know exactly what we’ll use it for,” he says. “We push the limits because the limits are there to be pushed.”

Looks like a wave to me.
discovermagazine.com... " target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



[edit on 8-8-2010 by pepsi78]

reply to post by pepsi78


Did you mean to reply this post to me, if so why?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by pepsi78

 

Did you mean to reply this post to me, if so why?

Because photons are not real.
No meajurment, no detection, just a theory that does not make sense.

reply to post by pepsi78


I have a hard time following you. Because you think that photons are not real, you think that I think they have eyes or that a conscious observer has influence on the outcome of experiments? That makes no sense to me. It seems to me you should address those things to Korg Trinity, who seems more in favor of such ideas.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by pepsi78

 

I have a hard time following you. Because you think that photons are not real, you think that I think they have eyes or that a conscious observer has influence on the outcome of experiments? That makes no sense to me. It seems to me you should address those things to Korg Trinity, who seems more in favor of such ideas.

Because of a simple factor, electrons behave just like photons when the double slit experiment is in practice. The same interferece patern. When you shine high frequncy light on the two holes you get an interference patern, and no photons are not part of classical phisics, they are just theory.

Do you have a picture of a photon? It's not even detectable, it's just pure theory. I showed a pic of an electron.
I guess people can think what they want , but leaving the tape on and altering the result by looking at the screen is very far fetched.

reply to post by pepsi78


And what does this have to do with me or any of my questions?

A separation must first have taken place for the first “Particle” to come into being, as a “Particle” is a Portion of something i.e. a Smaller “Component” of the former.

When a “Particle” has been formed, 2 or more “Components” exist, even if it involves the first “Particle” only…

The “Particle” comes from the separation of a “mixture” having 2 or more Components involved.

To show some interesting phenomena regarding this, I have chosen to use 2 Components which make up “Darkness” i.e. Lacking “Hue” according to some.

For something to have “Hue” (a Component of Colour) Contrast must be present, as “Hue” means according to an English dictionary;- “the particular shade or tint of colour.”

For a more technical meaning see….

en.wikipedia.org...


So I refer to Darkness as lacking “Contrast” between 2 colours in this case Black & White.
If we mix Black & White we get Grey.

The Grey is dependant on the Ratio of Black & White.

May I suggest that “Contrast” may be a more appropriate word to use, in that we are unable to see the difference between the Black & White “Components”, thus seeing both together as a colour of Grey rather than 2 separate colours.


If we Separate the 2 “Components” which make up the colour Grey by gathering one “Component”, in this case the Black “Component” to a single Point (in the end), having no Size or Shape, we form a “Particle” of Black, leaving its Surrounding as the other Component which will be White.

Black & White are of course “Opposites”.

The Word “Particle” meaning “a part of”, in this case the Black is a “Particle” from the Grey.

We can in fact choose any location, within the “Boundaries” of the Grey, to Separate off the Black to.

Animation 001.



In this case described above, the “Particle” is said to be the “Inner” Component, being smaller and its “Environment” it exists in, is said to be the “Outer”.

Note carefully; the “illusion” of the receding Black caused by the separating off, of the Black to a single location, in this case to the Centre of the Grey (Vanishing point or Eternity).


But in this next animation, I have shown the Black gathering into a small area (Disc) in the Middle of the Grey, instead of into “Infinity” or “Vanishing point” in the absolute u]Centre, ….

Animation 002.



In this next Animation, I have shown the “Separation” of the Black into a location, other than the Middle of the Grey.

Animation 003.



The next animation shows the Black being separated out, into a small Disc.

Note here; the Black is seen to Recede to a lesser distance, than in the First and Second animations.

The Distance the Black recedes to, is expressed in 2D, i.e. The Smaller the area containing the Black, the further away it appears to be.
So in this next animation, the Black appears a little closer than in the Second animation.

Animation 004.



It can also be treated as looking through a “Tube” where the internal wall surface, is White and at the far end of the “Tube” is seen to be either, a Black “Wall” (Disc) or is seeing as being Black “Outside” or beyond the far end of the “Tube”.

In this next animation, I have shown the Black (Disc) moving about within the boundaries of the White “Component”, as though the far end of a “Tube”, is being moved about in your vision.

Animation 005.



A “Particle” can either have size, or No size or shape, depending on its definition.

So the “First movement of the Mind” is expressed as “To & Fro” from observing the change in Size according to the Separation taking place. This is if interpreted as if giving the impression the Black is receding.

Now “Rotate” the Concept 90°….

Animation 006.



So the forming of a “Particle” is the Separation of 2 Components, which are from a single Component involving 2 sub “Components” which were a mixture before.

If this was Not the Case, there would be no Environment for the Particle to be in ???

In this Case the forming of a Black “Particle” is the separation of Grey into its 2 “Components”, Black & White where the “Inner” Particle is Black and the “Outer” Particle is White.

We can also produce an “Inner” Particle as a White Particle and the “Outer” Particle as a Black Particle using the same model…
I refer to the "Outer" as also being a "Particle" as it is the other "Component" (Opposite) of the Grey.

Animation 007.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

You've posted this exact response in another thread titled "Did you know this, about the Theory of Light ?". I am having difficulty understanding exactly what it is you are trying to say in relation to the topic "For the First Time Ever, Scientists Watch an Atom's Electrons Moving in Real Time". Can you clarify your position please?

reply to post by john_bmth


My last post is of course about the beginning if it can be called that, i.e. before the introduction of this little universe we see now...

See On Page 5

My post regarding.

quote;

Two Components are required to produce a Spectrum involving Light. Not just one, a "Prism" etc. etc.

Reply from Aquarius1 (The author of this interesting thread) regarding the above post referred to… quote;

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

Absolutely not off topic, I believe that everything is related, how else can you get here from there, many scientists working on an experiment find something important that they weren't looking for, you can call it an accident, not so sure.

And carrying on from my last post on page 6 regarding the affect an edge in the path of light has on the light.

Drawing a parrael with the affect of an edge that any particle (interpreted as a particle) passes over.

Showing a single edge and another (Inverted) being introduced to form a "Slit".

This was an attempt to draw to peoples attention to the behaviour of such particles in way not often understood or often misunderstood.

All things are found in duality.... this is why we see light behave as particles in some cases, and behaving as waves in other cases.

What is recorded is a human understanding or an explanation of some phenomenon based on human indoctrination and may not be what is actually going on, but instead only our interpretation of decoded information via the brain.

What produces this little universe is nothing at all like what we see and experience (in the human experience) or that interpreted via the brain, having the influence of indoctrination, involving the education system, acting as a “filter” in what we may understand of our observations.

Another famous Scientist named Goethe touched on some of this I have found through the R&D I have been involved with over the last 17 years (Full Time), and part time prior to this over 20 years starting from the early 1970's.

One such member on ATS made this comment, quote;

everyone preferred Newton's ideas and Goethe's brilliant discoveries got swept into the corner and forgotten.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
What is recorded is a human understanding or an explanation of some phenomenon based on human indoctrination and may not be what is actually going on, but instead only our interpretation of decoded information via the brain.

What produces this little universe is nothing at all like what we see and experience (in the human experience) or that interpreted via the brain, having the influence of indoctrination, involving the education system, acting as a “filter” in what we may understand of our observations.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

I can't remember a single (science) teacher who told me not to question the things he taught. On the contrary, I was encouraged to do so. Can you come with any evidence of the contrary? If not, on what exactly do you base that the education system is indoctrinating people?

And how do you "know" that the universe is nothing like what we see and experience? How do you explain that science produces the most amazing discoveries that are put in practical use at such an insane rate? Couldn't it be because it is the most accurate description of our universe we humans ever had? Or because it is all lies?

reply to post by -PLB-

I can't remember a single (science) teacher who told me not to question the things he taught. On the contrary, I was encouraged to do so.

I never implied this....

Can you come with any evidence of the contrary? If not, on what exactly do you base that the education system is indoctrinating people?

Indoctrination is a perfectly normal human condition...

And how do you "know" that the universe is nothing like what we see and experience?

How do you know it isn't ???

How do you explain that science produces the most amazing discoveries that are put in practical use at such an insane rate?

Take another look at what humanity is doing to your world....

Couldn't it be because it is the most accurate description of our universe we humans ever had?

Absolutelly correct....

Or because it is all lies?

I never suggested it was all lies ????

[edit on 10-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by -PLB-
I can't remember a single (science) teacher who told me not to question the things he taught. On the contrary, I was encouraged to do so. Can you come with any evidence of the contrary? If not, on what exactly do you base that the education system is indoctrinating people?

I couldn't have said it better myself! Star!

It is true that the science establishment runs by consensus which often literally throws the baby out with the bathwater, however The main reason to teach is to inspire young minds into thinking beyond the horizons of what is currently known, while instilling confidence in the knowledge of where we came from and how we got to today.

Physics teachers are often pointed to and said look at the stiff geek. But in reality it is the Physics Teacher whom is the most flexible to new and interesting ideas.

I cannot think of a more rewarding job!!

Korg.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]