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.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 63
55
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
It's not a state of bliss. If you watched the video up to the time index you cited, then you heard the professor say he was upset that the experimental results don't follow what we'd consider to be a logical prediction. Did you hear that?

Being upset at illogical experimental results is not bliss.




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
This is what QM is; en.wikipedia.org...


Your right whats your point see QM was modelled after observations made of the universe through experiments. Its not made to tell us why this occurs that is the theory of everything yet to be discovered. So your whole argument is based on the fact QM doesnt tell us why these interactions occur? So itake it you dont believe in gravity either we have modeled it and we can figure out its interactions but we dont know what causes it. So to you is gravity just a figment of our imagination?


I knew that all along. let me be clear; I was ONLY!!!!! arguing, because I thought believes of QM believed that it equaled the universe. I was only arguing, because I thought believers of QM, thought that QM, was more than just approximations and equations. That they thought it was the exact description of reality as it is itself.

I have reason to believe that there are people who do believe that!, It is against those people I am arguing.


I dont believe any physicist believes that as i said earlier its an approximation. We discovered this is the way it behaves but the universe still wont let us know why. Maybe you might find a a high school physics student that believes they know all the answers but they still have alot to learn. When i try to explain things to you do you notice several times in this thread i give you two answers or even an opposing view to others on this thread. The reason is simple we dont have all the answers and sometimes were stuck with just modeling it great example is Quantum tunnelling we know what's happening because we see the results. We can use QM to accurately predict the circumstances whenit occurs as well. Problem is we only have some educated guesses as to what's actually occurring.

Remember logic dictates this cannot occur at all and it violates whats called a classic energy state. This is no different than rolling a ball up the hill without enough energy should roll back down. What we discovered however is the ball can go through the hill and roll down the other side. Our ball literally dug through a hill to find a lower energy state. Now the reason this occurs is its a property of the wave function since part of the wave would be on the other side of the hill. What we cant figure out is why the Universe does this when it should be a solid particle. String theory has what ill say is a reasonable explanation but string theory has problems in other areas and as we discover more now has more patches than a leaking life boat.

The key to the theory of everything (going out on a limb here) will involve frequencies and im going to predict were going to be shocked as we realize the Universe tricked us and everything we believe to be reality is nothing more than frequency interactions that create the illusion of solid objects. For example if you have a wall and you could match its phase variance you could literally walk right through it. The problem is the wait time involved would be longer than the sun has remaining but you know time is relative.




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



Of course a single electron creates an interference pattern. See the electron gun fired them one at a time and we continue to do this until we have enough to see the pattern. You cant see a pattern on anything in the universe consisting of just one incident. A pattern by its very nature requires a process to be repeated.


you are kidding, right ?

I just showed you the video on Huygens principle and why one wave produces interference.

but lets have a look at your argument


The Möllenstedt-type biprism [1] is analogous to the optical biprism (Fig. 1). It consists of a positively biased thin filament (diameter less than a micrometer) placed between two grounded plates. The electric field around the filament deflects the electron waves, so that they interfere below the biprism. The ingenuity of the biprism is that the deflection angle is independent of the distance of the electrons from the filament and that the biprism has virtually no aberrations. The deflection angle is proportional to the voltage Ubp between the filament and the plates

www.chiraltem.physics.at...

HOW, HOW in any possible way is this comparable with self interference of a wave ???
this is a prism for electrons, an adjustable prism....

have you watched the video in the link you presented ? don't you see single points as the electron hit the screen?
there is no pattern just one point at time.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

You are showing me those videos as an example of why these brainwashed quantum woo woo extremists believe what they do right? Not showing me what I should be believing in right? Just so we are on the same page, which I think we are, materialist rationalist realists who would get along nicely with Einstein and Schrodinger.


I thought some history on QM would be nice, and is good to know for any argument.

the first 7 or 15 minutes of the third video "The Wave Function" is my favorite : LOL
edit on 9-7-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
don't you see single points as the electron hit the screen?
there is no pattern just one point at time.
Your point being? If you see a pattern after adding the results of one independent event after another after another, where do you think that pattern came from? It came from adding up all the individual results. How else can you explain the pattern that emerges after repeated trials?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




30:15 - 30:54 - 31:40



edit on 9-7-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
don't you see single points as the electron hit the screen?
there is no pattern just one point at time.
Your point being? If you see a pattern after adding the results of one independent event after another after another, where do you think that pattern came from? It came from adding up all the individual results. How else can you explain the pattern that emerges after repeated trials?


But it is an error, to say the quality of the added up trails, = the single trial everytime. You are using very strong cognitive dissonance to try and squirm your way out of erred thinking, or goal post moving.

If we have a robot that bowls. And its designed so it tosses the ball directly straight, but each time it does so, its mechanism of tossing 'moves to the left or right the slightest bit'. And the bowling balls it is bowling are 1 inch in diameter steel balls, and the pins it is knocking down are 1,000,000 crystal pins lined up. And we run this machine 1,000 times, and we notice that it doesnt just hit the middle pin every time.

And we take the sum of every trial, every pin it possibly hit, every direction the ball shooter could possibly hit. And say, "This is our range!". (as a dice has a range of possible places the bottom of the table can end up hitting a dice face)

And then we start the experiment over, with the first ball, one at a time. We are just about the shoot the first ball, and you walk over in a fedora and brown trench coat and whisper in my ear "hey...how ya doing buddy...you know.... when we shoot that ball, the ball doesnt really exist you know, its actually a wave function, of all past trials"

and I say "security, theres a strange man on the premises, someone lock this man up"

and you say "I am right! that is what they always want to do to the truth speakers! I am a prophet you hear me! I am a king!"

and I turn to everyone and say "the particle obviously always exists, and any concept of a wave function is merely the obvious, since you literally just did it, taking the sum of thousand trails to give yourself a range of probabilities, but its obviously very real physical qualities that determine each and every specific ball toss, and anyone who can read and comprehend english can understand this as truth"

and then I bow, and am cheered, and then we march into the future, free from the plight of the ignorance of a stubborn man.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
If that's supposed to be in response to my question "How else can you explain the pattern that emerges after repeated trials?", I must point out that the bowling ball analogy doesn't apply.

We can cover one slit of the double slit and the interference pattern goes away, then remove the cover and the interference pattern re-appears. there's nothing in your bowling ball analogy that compares with this behavior.

Moreover quantum theory predicts the interference and makes many other predictions that have been experimentally verified. Since you don't have a better explanation, I don't see why you're so opposed to a theory that makes such accurate predictions. If you had a better model, your denial would be a little easier to understand., but apparently, you don't.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
If that's supposed to be in response to my question "How else can you explain the pattern that emerges after repeated trials?", I must point out that the bowling ball analogy doesn't apply.

We can cover one slit of the double slit and the interference pattern goes away, then remove the cover and the interference pattern re-appears. there's nothing in your bowling ball analogy that compares with this behavior.

Moreover quantum theory predicts the interference and makes many other predictions that have been experimentally verified. Since you don't have a better explanation, I don't see why you're so opposed to a theory that makes such accurate predictions. If you had a better model, your denial would be a little easier to understand., but apparently, you don't.


Yes there is. By adding a slit, or taking one away, the ball will have greater possible paths, of which cause a different spread of results upon detection.


"How else can you explain the pattern that emerges after repeated trials?"

Exact physical qualities interacting with exact physical qualities which result in exact physical qualities.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, let me start from a squarish one. And be crisp and clear with my questioning. Please answer honestly, lets remove our egos and emotions, starting now.


In a double slit experiment is the nozzle/gun, which shoots the particles, aimed directly at the material in between both slits?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
I suppose that depends on the experiment, as there are many. In this particular experiment, I'd say no, not exactly:

Extreme beam attenuation in double-slit experiments: Quantum and subquantum scenarios

This experiment uses the double slit experiment to examine something called "The quantum sweeper effect" and just aiming an unaltered beam directly in the middle between the slits won't create this pattern.

You might be able to find other experiments where that was the case, but I'm not sure this method of communication will be effective.

edit on 9-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
I suppose that depends on the experiment, as there are many. In this particular experiment, I'd say no, not exactly:

Extreme beam attenuation in double-slit experiments: Quantum and subquantum scenarios

This experiment uses the double slit experiment to examine something called "The quantum sweeper effect" and just aiming an unaltered beam directly in the middle between the slits won't create this pattern.

You might be able to find other experiments where that was the case, but I'm not sure this method of communication will be effective.


Ok. So this is referring to a 'beam'. I believe we were talking about the individual particle nature of individual trials.

So it is appropriate for me to ask, 'is the beam in the experiment, creating 1 particle at a time/trial'?

And then, I will also ask;

'Because the beam is not directed at the exact center, and when it is, there is no interference pattern, would I be correcting in stating; in order for a singular nozzle/beam emitter to not be pointing at a center material between two slits, musn't the nozzle/beam emitter be at some angle towards one or the other slit'?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Ok. So this is referring to a 'beam'. I believe we were talking about the individual particle nature of individual trials.

So it is appropriate for me to ask, 'is the beam in the experiment, creating 1 particle at a time/trial'?
[/quote]
As seen in this video, the same setup can produce a beam, or with some work, one particle at a time. He shows the beam first, then we see him work on the apparatus, then it allows only one particle at a time to pass

Single Photon Interference




'Because the beam is not directed at the exact center, and when it is, there is no interference pattern, would I be correcting in stating; in order for a singular nozzle/beam emitter to not be pointing at a center material between two slits, musn't the nozzle/beam emitter be at some angle towards one or the other slit'?
No, the beam isn't that focused. In this video, the beam can be envisioned as wide as the bowling alley in the bowling ball analogy. There's no need to re-aim the beam.

double slit experiment [NOVA]

edit on 9-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think you switch here from single particle interference we was talking about to a wave interference ( first video ) we all know a wave is producing an interference. Should this be proof of single particle interference, or what?, you are applying a wave experiment results on to single particle experiments ?
There is no thing as photon particle, this is only in your math. Light is a wave!

And i need to repeat
EM waves propagate and don't move like objects.
objects like electrons change position when they move, EM eather reconfigures.

NOTHING MOVES or hits us with the speed of light when we see the light.


the second video only repeats what we've said. One electron, one point on the screen, million electrons and we see how they were deflected
edit on 9-7-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think you switch here from single particle interference we was talking about to a wave interference ( first video ) we all know a wave is producing an interference. Should this be proof of single particle interference, or what?, you are applying a wave experiment results on to single particle experiments ?
There is no thing as photon particle, this is only in your math. Light is a wave!
Yes a photon is a wave packet, but you get the same results with electrons and other particles, so electrons (and other particles), sometimes display wavelike and sometimes display particle-like properties, as do photons, depending on how the experiment is performed.

Here's the video with single electrons, same pattern as the photons:

edit on 9-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
As seen in this video, the same setup can produce a beam, or with some work, one particle at a time. He shows the beam first, then we see him work on the apparatus, then it allows only one particle at a time to pass

Single Photon Interference



When one particle at a time is fired at two slits, where is the particle aimed?





No, the beam isn't that focused. In this video, the beam can be envisioned as wide as the bowling alley in the bowling ball analogy. There's no need to re-aim the beam.

double slit experiment [NOVA]



One particle is as wide as the bowling alley?


I would like to see experiments with the slits starting very small and then trials increasing with size.

Experiments with the slits starting very close together and then trials increasing their distance apart.

And the combination of both, so small slits close together. Large slits close together. Small slits a little further apart. Large slits a little further apart. And so on.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Here's the video with single electrons, same pattern as the photons:


If you pause the video at 1 second, is that an interference pattern?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
You can't see a pattern at 1 second, however you do see a pattern 30 minutes later. The spot you see at 1 second is part of that pattern, so in a way, yes what you see at 1 second is part of the pattern observed 30 minutes later (the video was sped up).



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
You can't see a pattern at 1 second, however you do see a pattern 30 minutes later. The spot you see at 1 second is part of that pattern, so in a way, yes what you see at 1 second is part of the pattern observed 30 minutes later (the video was sped up).


Why are you so dishonest with yourself, and in turn me.

Is a single person a crowd of people?

Is a baseball 1,000 baseballs?

Is a single particle, 500 particles shot over the course of 30 minutes?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

When one particle at a time is fired at two slits, where is the particle aimed?

One particle is as wide as the bowling alley?



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join