/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10987624

102KiB, 2000x958, 2000px-Double-slit.svg.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 06:04:35 2019 No.10987624 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10987656 >>10987680 >>10987705 >>10987848 >>10988018 >>10988322 >>10988370 >>10989348 >>10989380

So let me get this straight..

If you watch it go down, the particle acts like matter where it distinctly makes bullethole type marks on the paper

But if you don't watch it, then it creates a wave like gradient?

So just by having human eyeballs on it, suddenly it decides to act like matter instead of wave?

How is this reconcile?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 06:26:17 No.10987656 Report

Quoted By: >>10987805 >>10987924 >>10988180 >>10988372 >>10989338

>>10987624
it's all a gaggle of judaic trickery attempting to pose as a proper experiment concept
it's like a basic-ass cart rolling down a slope experiment, except that instead of not interacting with the cart while it's rolling down you grab it half way, measure its dimensions, then put it back onto the slope, no shit it's gonna behave differently than if you didn't touch it

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 06:32:11 No.10987665 Report

Quoted By: >>10987706

"human eyeballs" isnt what changes it. its the equipment used to measure whats going on at the double slit that messes with the outcome.
reconcile with what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 06:43:31 No.10987680 Report

Quoted By: >>10987705 >>10988347

>>10987624

Ive yet to see any explanation that makes sense to a layman or casual sci freak without going strictly off into the realm of abstract math. Even now, decades later after this became part of mainstream education, we still get the same old tired and completely unsatisfactory analogies.

I think the simple fact is no one really understand why this is happening. Not at an intuitive level. My guess is it indicates that the nature of reality is, in a very fundamental sense, quite different from we think it is. Who knows, but perhaps sometime in the future people regard concepts such as space, matter, energy, maybe even time, as being inadequate descriptors. Getting there, but not quite right. Serving a purpose but lacking when exact precision is required. Like Newtonian physics is today compared to Relativity.

Much in the same way people had a conception of Earth as flat. It made sense to them at the time rather than them having to wrestle with a radically new concept, that they were actually living on a huge sphere.

As you are probably aware there are, incredibly, still primitive thinkers today who reject the notion of a spherical Earth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 07:00:03 No.10987705 Report

Quoted By: >>10987708 >>10989400

>>10987624
no, in both cases the individual particles make particle-like spots on the screen. only when repeated experiments are done do you start seeing a difference when a second detector is placed at the slits.

to make it dumber enough for >>10987680, basically what happens is that wave-like interference only occurs if you don’t disturb the particle by measuring it mid-flight. if you disturb it, you disrupt the rather “fragile” wave-like behavior because the detector at the slits needs to “bump” the particle somehow in order to detect it, and that causes it to lose its wave-like nature because of something called decoherence.

so the idea is that bumping the particle or not mid flight is what makes the difference

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 07:00:25 No.10987706 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987665
How do you know the equipment has messed with it unless you use your eyeballs to look at it though?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 07:04:40 No.10987708 Report

Quoted By: >>10987720 >>10988175

>>10987705
That doesn't make any fucking sense. How do you know that it ceases to behave like a wave rather than it continues to behave like a wave and simply cannot be observed as a wave? Is there any proof that particles exist? I find it hard to believe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 07:21:36 No.10987720 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987708
>How do you know that it ceases to behave like a wave rather than it continues to behave like a wave and simply cannot be observed as a wave?
i mean, the thread is about the double-slit experiment. right? "interference" is a wave thing, so if you get interference in it, then that means some wave behavior is happening
> Is there any proof that particles exist?
oh god. this is pseud type stuff now. fine, how about this? https://youtu.be/xky3f1aSkB8

Cman

Cman Fri 20 Sep 2019 07:22:27 No.10987722 Report

Quoted By: >>10987734 >>10987753 >>10989441

You stand at the edge of the greatest hoax ever orchestrated.
This will never make sense because it is an amalgam of several experiments to study the wave and particle nature of matter.
Light has been erroneously classified as both a wave and a particle, there is no actual evidence to show light is ever a particle, but the scientists who maintain the particulate nature of light are just like everyone else who hates losing an argument, and also losing funding etc, so they lie and wade through over a hundred years of deliberately misleading data looking for something that isn't there.
Quantum mechanics is a hoax. All of it starting at Einstein and reaching critical mass with hawking.
No different then when universities taught that the earth was flat etc.
You have been mislead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 07:30:54 No.10987734 Report

Quoted By: >>10987772

>>10987722
shut up pseud, photomultiplier tubes are cheap. go buy one and play with it instead of going schizo on the internet

i know, i know, you might need to "learn" how to use an oscilloscope, and that's not as easy as youtube, but unfortunately the real world isn't as easy as your digital media

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 07:46:10 No.10987753 Report

Quoted By: >>10987782

>>10987722
>I don't understand it, therefore it must be a hoax

Cman

Cman Fri 20 Sep 2019 07:57:30 No.10987772 Report

Quoted By: >>10987779 >>10989468

>>10987734
Man I would love to debate this with you, if I'm wrong could you present me with a little more information, your post is confusing me more than anything.
How does a photomultiplier suggest both wave and particle nature, it only shows wave nature. We have no way to send an individual light particle with any accuracy.
What you are saying is a theory, based on misinformation.
Also what does "learn" mean versus just learn, what do the inverted commas do to modify the word, help me "learn" if you will.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 08:01:11 No.10987779 Report

Quoted By: >>10987791 >>10987809

>>10987772
the scare quotes around the word learn were a joke

PMTs are easily capable of detecting single photons, and if you tried it out you would see this first hand. unfortunately zoomers and retard boomers never do experimental science themselves even though they could if they weren’t lazy fucks, so they end up like you getting duped into misinformation

Cman

Cman Fri 20 Sep 2019 08:03:47 No.10987782 Report

Quoted By: >>10987792 >>10988192

>>10987753
It's the mountains of conflicting data and historical evidence that got me.
If you would like to convince me that I'm wrong you should type "proof/evidence that light is a particle" into Google, then copy and paste the link here, maybe some of the paragraph with the evidence also.
You can't though, because there is no evidence.

Cman

Cman Fri 20 Sep 2019 08:15:26 No.10987791 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987779
It's capable of being stimulated with radiation, then emitting electrons to a sensor that converts it into a signal that you are free to interpret however you wish.
A Geiger Counter interprets both particle (alpha and beta) and wave (gamma) with the same distinct clicks, it's an analogy to how misinterpreting pulses of light wave energy as particles,
How do you send a single photon?
You are just turning up your light source until you reach the minimum energy to get one electron to leave the emitter, what you are measuring and proving is the particulate nature of electrons ;)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 08:18:51 No.10987792 Report

Quoted By: >>10987807 >>10987814

>>10987782
>Google
i see, you’re stuck in your digital media delusions. try out the real world brah

>You are just turning up your light source until you reach the minimum energy to get one electron to leave the emitter, what you are measuring and proving is the particulate nature of electrons ;)
oh okay you made it to 1905 level science. i think some dude won the nobel prize for writing about this around that time....

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 08:31:50 No.10987805 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987656
Fpbp

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 08:34:23 No.10987807 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987792
youre literally arguing more poorly right now than this schizo namefag

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 08:39:19 No.10987809 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987779
Particles don't exist in reality, just a human conception of solids that's hard to shake off.
Furthermore, I'm fully content that reality is stranger than fiction.

Cman

Cman Fri 20 Sep 2019 08:41:15 No.10987814 Report

Quoted By: >>10987815 >>10987845

>>10987792
That's good advice, but quantum mechanics doesn't exist in the real world, it's a realm of pure abstraction that people interpret as the real world because they are being mislead. There are always charlatans, cult leaders, mystics etc claiming to have abilities and knowledge they never actually demonstrate. There are always people that get tricked into believing it. This is what has happened now.
In a hundred years what has quantum mechanics demonstrated or achieved in any tangible way, it exists only in your mind.
Quantum mechanics is just a good for atheists.

Cman

Cman Fri 20 Sep 2019 08:42:34 No.10987815 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987814
Just a god for atheists*

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 09:16:51 No.10987845 Report

Quoted By: >>10987905

>>10987814
Retarded post

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 09:19:16 No.10987848 Report

Quoted By: >>10989492

>>10987624
Shooting a particle with another particle collapses the wave function take a class or something

Cman

Cman Fri 20 Sep 2019 10:01:35 No.10987905 Report

Quoted By: >>10987909 >>10988389

>>10987845
I'm sorry man, I guess what I was saying is gibberish,
Let's use quantum mechanics to answer the question so we don't sound stupid ;)

The particles behave the way they do because of a Bose-einstein condensate that's simultaneously existing in 0, 3,4,8,13 and infinite dimensions while being neither on nor off, on, off and on and off and in the infinite time space of the reinman-zeta function, consciousness is merely matter experiencing it self subjectively from infinite repeating timespace black hole data loops that both exist and don't exist, time is both linear and circular, you are time travelling through a wormholes event horizon in discrete packets of time space data and everytime you observe anything it will change into something else, I'm certain that I'm uncertain. The cat is both alive and dead at the same time, and if I had the time I would post a massive pic of gibberish heiroglyphs that no one on earth except long dear scientists from ancient times.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 10:08:15 No.10987909 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987905
>More gibberish that doesn’t have anything to do with quantum mechanics

Take a physics course

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 10:22:31 No.10987924 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987656
Based

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 11:04:30 No.10987979 Report

Quoted By: >>10988308 >>10989363

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hopd-gKB1Xc&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2yYgfaU6Ik

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 11:38:46 No.10988018 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987624
the measuring techniques will alter the outcome.

the point of the experiment has nothing to do with the concept of measuring or that perception has any effect or some bullshit like that.

the point is, that electrons can be both modeled and represented as waves or as particles, this was foretold by mathematical models, and this experiment proved it

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 13:27:03 No.10988175 Report

Quoted By: >>10989349

>>10987708
Yes! This is actually really close to the way the theory works. Quantum "particles" (I'll call them quanta to distinguish them from classical particles) NEVER stop behaving as waves, and NEVER behave like true particles which follow a finely defined trajectory through space. Practically the only "particle-like" behavior that quanta display is discrete countability (you will never detect a non-natural number amount of quanta).
When physicists say that a quantum displays "particle-like behavior," what they really mean is that it's been localized: in a state in which it's far more likely to be in one small region than anywhere else. However, this is perfectly well described by the wave equations of quantum mechanics. If a photon is detected through one of the slits, the parts of the wave located elsewhere are eliminated, and all that remains is the bit of the wave going through the one slit. The photon continues to evolve as a WAVE, but because you don't have the wave going through both slits, you don't get interference. The photon still is spread over a nonzero region of space, still is described by a range of wavelengths, and still evolves as a wave.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 13:31:07 No.10988180 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987656
based I wish people wouldnt fall for popsci memes

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 13:39:03 No.10988192 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987782
Don't delude yourself. Light is neither particle nor wave. It's a quantum particle. Describing it as such leads to results that are verified to 20 decimal places and more. In fact, quantum mechanics is the best-tested theory (not hypothesis!) we have. You are literally delusional.

Btw, first dude to consider a particle theory of light was Newton.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 14:49:34 No.10988308 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987979
Incredible videos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 14:56:13 No.10988322 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987624
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL88omsU5dU

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 15:12:07 No.10988347 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987680
what if instead of measuring it mid flight you put a flourescent material at the end?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 15:33:02 No.10988370 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987624
>bullethole
That's what happens to the material trying to observe the full wave.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 15:34:06 No.10988372 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987656
next you'll talk about the annunaki

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 15:46:45 No.10988389 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987905
>Let's use quantum mechanics to answer the question so we don't sound stupid ;)
This is the only answer that can be given to your comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2PJCj2Wiyg

You failed... And on so many levels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 22:52:59 No.10989338 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987656
Except this is not what it's like at all and you're trying to shoehorn classical analogies to the experiment that don't work.

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk Fri 20 Sep 2019 22:55:01 No.10989348 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987624
quaternions

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 22:55:28 No.10989349 Report

Quoted By:

>>10988175
This

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 22:58:20 No.10989363 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987979
Bohmian mechanics is wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 23:04:40 No.10989380 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987624

This experiment is misrepresented 99999999 times per day I bet.

Measuring (read : physically interacting with) tiny things has an effect on the thing being measured.

>tell me how HOT my fever is without placing an object against me which will inevitably remove heat from me, changing the collected data

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 23:10:26 No.10989400 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987705
This makes perfect sense to me.
The only thing I find strange is what you've already pointed out, why does a seemingly infinite set of probabilities (interference pattern) reduce to not ONE, but specifically TWO (2, left or right) possible outcomes after interaction? Interfering with something obviously change is it, but why does it change in this way? Maybe we need to study the effect of our physical interference with matter/space/reality..

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 23:29:37 No.10989441 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987722

Do you have a rational alternative explanation, or a speculation worthy of rational discussion?

Genuine question. Its childishly easy to merely dismiss something, but not so easy to offer an alternative that can withstand rational critique.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 23:41:02 No.10989468 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987772

Protip, the use of inverted commas is frequently used by pretentious arsewipes suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect.

They will take a superior and condescending attitude, yet the content of their posts will eventually reveal that they lack any deep or intuitive understanding of the topic. Most of the time they are merely parroting what they heard in a class or read in a text book.

Their writing style is broadly similar and often indicates a 3rd world tertiary education.

Once seen can not be unseen. However the benefit is you can then safely avoid any form of discussion with them as it will be worthless. They have nothing to offer.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 152771730.jpg, 47KiB, 480x720

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 23:43:23 No.10989475 Report

Quoted By: >>10989483

>quantum flapdoodle increases

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gellmann_murray_a6.jpg, 94KiB, 300x436

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 23:45:33 No.10989483 Report

Quoted By:

>>10989475
based MGM quoter

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 23:47:56 No.10989492 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987848

Well, there are alway exception to the rule. Here, let me fix it for you.

"Shooting" a particle with another particle "collapses" the wave function take a class or something

There ya go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 02:27:33 No.10989822 Report

Quoted By: >>10989842

>shoot photon at electron (observation)
>electron flies in different direction (interference pattern affected by photon"
op is a brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 02:36:53 No.10989842 Report

Quoted By:

>>10989822
U make it sound like our eyeballs shoot out photons.

But rather the photon is bouncing off electron whether we observe or not. Only difference is whether our eye is there to absorb the photon or not

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches