Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:38:26 UTC No. 16273646

They have. A long time ago. They can't be blamed if other people wilfully misunderstand the explanation.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:40:17 UTC No. 16273649

>>16273646
They haven't, actually. It's one of the famous unsolved problems in physics.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:41:31 UTC No. 16273651

>>16273649
What's unsolved about it?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:45:36 UTC No. 16273654

>>16273651
There is no formal solution that explains light's behavior in this experiment. Physicists are still fighting over it to this day.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:50:27 UTC No. 16273661

>>16273654
What are you talking about? Physicists have a theory (Quantum Mechanics) that predicts exactly what happens with incredible accuracy. You need to explain better what you think they are fighting over.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:53:28 UTC No. 16273662

>>16273628
QM interpretations are still in the domain of meta-physics since it doesn't yield a testable hypothesis. Physicists have differing opinions on the subject but also have different favourite flavors of ice cream.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:55:50 UTC No. 16273663

>>16273661
>Physicists have a theory (Quantum Mechanics) that predicts exactly what happens with incredible accuracy
They don't, actually. That's a pretty bold claim that no physicist would support.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:56:27 UTC No. 16273664

>>16273663
Thanks for confirming that you were trolling all along

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:58:30 UTC No. 16273666

>>16273663
Ahh, you're shitposting and/or have no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:58:35 UTC No. 16273667

When talking about this problem There's only metaphysical theories, but since the modern physics "quantum physics" is all about uncertainties and contradictories
In my opinion i came up with two theories:
Our eyes aren't only designed to receive light "images" and send it to the brain to process i guess it can also affect and change our reality and this is not something new there's and ancient religious belief called Evil Eye.
Second one is literally photons can know if someone is looking.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:00:32 UTC No. 16273668

>>16273664
>>16273666
I'm waiting for you to post your theory.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:01:29 UTC No. 16273669

>>16273668
QM as taught in any physics class is my theory

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:02:38 UTC No. 16273670

>>16273668
You still haven't explained what they get wrong. I am a physicist btw and I'm curious what you think we don't know.

Stop guessing start learning at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:33:55 UTC No. 16273696

>>16273628
Because it’s a lie. You cant shoot a single photon through a slit. We’ve been conned the uncertainty principle with lasers is an optical illusion.

Cope and seethe faggots

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:59:32 UTC No. 16273724

>>16273654
>light's behavior in this experiment
But the experiment is with electrons.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:25:37 UTC No. 16273748

>>16273661
No, QM doesn't predict it; rather, QM was given as a potential explanation, but still doesn't explain why the behavior is such. QM interpretations do but they are very debated. tl;dr you are a retard and OP, for once, is not.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:26:54 UTC No. 16273751

>>16273724
electrons are light

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:00:39 UTC No. 16273769

>>16273751
Sure are buddy, and you are one smart little sun beam, now please go shine your light 6 feet under

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:02:28 UTC No. 16273770

>>16273751
ok bro
>>16273748
Cope. The fundamental/philosophical aspects of QM interpretations are a matter of debate, but you can easily predict the results of a double slit experiment using the Copenhagen interpretation or any other common interpretation.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:10:55 UTC No. 16273777

Science is about objective truth and not "agreement". The truth doesn't give a shit what midwitted ACKadummics believe.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:19:19 UTC No. 16273784

>>16273777
>Science is about objective prediction
FTFY
Explanation and meaning is for philosophy; science is purely descriptive and prediction.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:23:40 UTC No. 16273787

>>16273784
>Explanation and meaning is for philosophy
Philosophy is a branch of science. Philosoplebs proved themselves to be intellectually inadequate, now it is science's job to find meaning and solve philosophical questions. And science does it more successfully than philosocucks. Science established the deep connection between consciousness, quantum mechanics and gravity.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:31:44 UTC No. 16273799

>>16273770
>>16273769
how do solar panels work? what is the transition that allows photons to turn into electrons?

I'll wait heh

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:41:01 UTC No. 16273806

>>16273799
Photons don't become electrons you dumb fuck the energy from the photon makes the electron become free
Learn about the photoelectric effect but first you need to learn about the atomic model, I think you skipped middle school but in 4-5 years you should be good to go

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:38:34 UTC No. 16273851

>>16273799
I don't know how solar panels work. Luckily that's completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:40:19 UTC No. 16273853

>>16273628
There is no agreement need to be reached by science on this.

Let me put it this way, if tomorrow somebody finds out if you chant "wakawakawaka" and a literal bar of gold spawns right before you, scientists would call that settled science because it's a predictable {A -->B} relation demonstrable at command.
The literal mindboggling implication this sorcery would have on our understanding of reality, the "intepretation" as they call it, is not important to scientists as that is not science, but philosophy. All that matters to science is if you do "A" then "B" will happen consistently, and they have a mathmatical model to describe and predict relationship.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:46:30 UTC No. 16273862

>>16273806
ha you fell right into my trap

now explain how solar panels how so many free electrons to give up, and why we dont build panels that have 2x power output at half the lifespan, ill wait.
>>16273851
photon atom interaction physics isn't relevant? haha, what do you think the double slit is made out of, a perfectly neutral refractive material? heh, you've never read a paper in your life kiddo

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:59:01 UTC No. 16273875

>>16273862
Photon-atom interaction? Have you forgotten I informed you that the double split experiment is not about photons? It's a common misconception amongst pseuds/schizos. You can pass photons through a double slit but you can't "observe" one and do quantum mechanics with photons.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:34:26 UTC No. 16273887

>>16273875
>you can't "observe" one and do quantum mechanics with photons
wtf am I reading.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:36:01 UTC No. 16273889

>>16273887
Yes, in a double slit experiment. I'm not surprised that you struggle with reading comprehension. But it's really something you should work on...

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:56:48 UTC No. 16273905

>>16273889
You can do the double-slit experiment with any particle, even atoms or molecules.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:58:25 UTC No. 16273906

>>16273905
Again, reading comprehension. You can't do the quantum mechanical double slit experiment, where you "observe" one slit and not the other, thereby changing the interference pattern, with photons. Because you can't measure a photon without destroying it. Also a quick reminder: YWNBAP.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:02:29 UTC No. 16273908

>>16273875
that is /sci/ today. retards trying to retardingly school paid retards in their retarded sophon threads.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:07:12 UTC No. 16273911

>>16273906
>Because you can't measure a photon without destroying it
And what does that have anything to do with the result of the double-slit experiment? It's not about measuring a particle going through a slit. The whole point is what you measure at the *detector* and how two slits produce an interference pattern even for 'matter' particles like electrons.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:08:55 UTC No. 16273915

>>16273862
>now explain how solar panels how so many free electrons to give up
NTA but you fundamentally misunderstand how electricity works. Think of the solar panel circuit as a waterwheel, and the incoming photons as a river. As the river passes through the waterwheel, some its kinetic energy drives the wheel around, which is harnessed for some kind of work like grinding grain into flour or turning a dynamo.
Likewise, in a solar panel circuit, the electrons are pushed along by the incoming solar energy.
Electrons aren't being created from photons hitting the solar panel, electrons which already exist within the circuit are being moved around by the solar energy.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:41:18 UTC No. 16273933

>>16273670
Tell the class how to interpret the wave function big guy

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:47:39 UTC No. 16273936

>>16273933
A mathematical tool that we use to calculate quantum systems, one which has never been proven wrong by experiment. It's physical meaning is still an open question.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:49:52 UTC No. 16273938

>>16273628
Agreement on what exactly?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:51:50 UTC No. 16273939

>>16273936
Thank you for admitting physicists don't know something deeply fundamental about it.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:15:33 UTC No. 16274003

>>16273939
Aren't their job to know something deeply fundamental about it. They just have to predict what happens next.
See >>16273853

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:17:42 UTC No. 16274008

>>16274003
If all they need to know is what happens next, then epicycles was enough

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:19:54 UTC No. 16274012

>>16273853
>if tomorrow somebody finds out if you chant "wakawakawaka" and a literal bar of gold spawns right before you, scientists would call that settled science because it's a predictable {A -->B} relation demonstrable at command.
No they would call that a law. It's purely observational and has nothing to do with science. People knew if you jumped you fell back down before a model of gravity was introduced to explain the observed law. The problem is that you have no idea what's science and what's not

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:16:39 UTC No. 16274089

>>16273862
My dude, I think you might have brain damage, or you simple lack the fundamentals to know how electricity works...
Anyway read >>16273915
Here is something even a retard like you should be able to read https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/581332/how-does-having-free-electrons-make-something-a-conductor
Now fuck off and go clean a gutter or whatever you imbecile people do

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:48:55 UTC No. 16274114

>>16273668

My theory is ..
S and t in physical equation is extra dimension
Like. ..
Photon travel 1 second to hit detectors
when it hit detectors, its transferred kinetic energy = 1sec, -1sec (1sec in distance , 1 sec in time)
That mean photon momentum is -1sec, 1sec (-1sec in distance, 1 sec in time)
Both photon was true, you get one light as photon that have mass and another one that no mass.

So, real minimum or reality is wdh x stg x 2 = 12 dimension

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:02:37 UTC No. 16274309

>>16273654
> explains
We have never explained a single thing in the entire world. Explanation is actually impossible. At the end of any chain of "explanations" are facts that just are.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:16:45 UTC No. 16274319

>>16274309
>dude you can't know nuffin
put down the weed pen jake

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:27:25 UTC No. 16274331

>>16274309
Can you explain why you think that?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:40:09 UTC No. 16274352

>>16274331
Clearly, he's never learned any math, but for other fields I don't think he's wrong.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:42:38 UTC No. 16274357

>>16274352
Can you explain why you think that?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:15:51 UTC No. 16274423

>>16274352
maths is not science

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:20:18 UTC No. 16274431

>>16273628
Because they don't want to admit that consciousness is a fundamental part of reality.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:29:54 UTC No. 16274590

>>16274012
>It's purely observational and has nothing to do with science.
What
If you chant said phrase something crazy happens if you chant anything else nothing happens. That is not purely observational.
And yes people knew you fell but they didn't know exactly how fast or how far off you will still fall and what exact measurable physical factors signalled all these varibles in detail. The present model, distilled from tireless experimentations, rounded out all these details to the extreme so you can even send out satellites.
There's nothing fundementally different, only a nailing down of details mapped out in a more complex mathematical model as compared to the simple "I jump I fell" medieval model.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:42:58 UTC No. 16274625

>>16274590
NTA Yes it is purely observational, you at best have evidence that there may be a relation between saying wakawakawaka and gold appearing. I know it's hard to understand that it's not because one thing happens after the other that one caused the other but at least put some effort in grasping the basics of reasoning.
Understanding the relationship between phenomenas is not an easy job and mostly lead to dead ends or insufficient evidence for dismissing most other hypothesis.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:47:25 UTC No. 16274638

>>16274431
A couple of the dozens of interpretations of QM do account for consciousness

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 19:11:10 UTC No. 16274740

>>16274625
>I know it's hard to understand that it's not because one thing happens after the other that one caused the other but at least put some effort in grasping the basics of reasoning.
Maybe if you had a basic grasp of reasoning you'd have presented a better argument.
First I don't want to say "caused" when it comes to anything because that riles up the philosophers.
The "package" of chanting the phrase obviously signalled the spawning of the gold. Exactly what measurable physical varible (or combination of) in that package signals the spawning will then to subjected to the scientific method to distill a more detailed model/theory. Scientists would be testing what volume, pitch, location, source (human or can it be electronically produced)..etc. to see wheather it still worked. A literal combination and permutation of other sounds would be meticulously tested to see if they can also did something.
Once enough experimental data has been collected and scientists comes up with a story to incorporate it into the current narrative and feel satisfied they "understood" the phenomena through detailed predictions, it becomes settled science.

Obviously fundmentally they understood nothing, but a working model and verifiable predictions is their livelihood and achieving that through tenacious shut-up and calculate would be good enough.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 19:13:01 UTC No. 16274748

>>16274638
Not possible. Since we haven't yet defined scientifically what consciousness is there is no interpretation that can explain it.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 19:40:40 UTC No. 16274833

>kids on /sci/ still getting filtered by the fact that electrons and photons are not tiny bouncy balls

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 19:42:17 UTC No. 16274836

>>16274833
>electrons and photons are not tiny bouncy balls
how do they exchange energy then
>well aktshually they produce even smaller bouncy balls that hit each other that are too small for us to detect

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:16:36 UTC No. 16274928

>>16274740
>Obviously
If it's so obvious to you congratulations, I still don't think that jump in your reasoning from modelling and predicting and understanding nothing. Either we disagree on what understanding means or you are being disingenuous and trying to say "true" understanding is unattainable except through enlightenment or some other bullshit. Anyway if its the former I'd be glad to know your meaning of understanding, If it's the latter well the no true Scotsman fallacy is as strong as ever

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:34:14 UTC No. 16274960

Bohmian Mechanics solved this problem decades ago.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:47:40 UTC No. 16274980

>>16273628
because spatial relativity makes it so as you accelerate to highspeed you become a wave, the reason there's interference is because foreshortening space along geodesic lines causes broadcast ghosting while undergoing fusion.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:50:27 UTC No. 16274983

>>16274836
> well akshually they are interacting fields
> every quantum “particle” is an excitation of an underlying field that permeates all spacetime
> every quantum “wave” is dependent upon its “particle’s” probability distribution
> they exchange energies by interacting fields, but since it’s all quantized we can speak of it as particles
> tl;dr, there are no smaller bouncy balls until we detect them, current theory has edge cases but is still usable

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:57:28 UTC No. 16274993

>>16274928
>I'd be glad to know your meaning of understanding
See picrel.

As for "enlightenement" and any other /x/ tiered schizo ideas, before digressing off-topic, I'll just say that maybe some monkies managed to see some circuit board through a crack in the machine. Now obviously this by itself isn't going to somehow magically provide them with a new model to challenge the predicative prowess of the "little monkies inside vending machine" narrative that's been meticulously tested. Nonetheless they glimpsed the truth.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:49:27 UTC No. 16275186

>>16274993
Ok, I get what you're saying but I have to disagree... Understanding is not on a have or don't basis, you slowly start to comprehend the way the universe is and every step you make you understand a little more. We as a species of "smart monkeys" can grasp the inner workings, differently from those in your story. I know it's an allegory but the nuance must be pointed out. We might be far from completely understanding the means by which things are as they are but by saying we have no understanding is to say we grasp no knowledge of the inner or outer workings of the universe, and that is objectively false. I am taking you seriously because I believe you to be somewhat intelligent, not some religious schizo believing in god talking in his head. I agree with you in that we might never fully discover the mysteries behind every phenomena but that's not the point.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:55:44 UTC No. 16275385

>>16273628
post the actual experimental setup instead if meme images.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:26:15 UTC No. 16275536

>>16275186
>you slowly start to comprehend the way the universe is and every step you make you understand a little more
Are you sure about that?
By claiming this you are making certain metaphysical assumptions, namingly that the nature of things will always stay as they are currently known, that the patterns observed will always stay constant, never to change.
Do you know that for sure? Does empirical experimentations grant you that knowledge?
The value of science has always been in convenience and pragmatism. I don't need to be a religious schizo to know the search for eternal truth has and never will be the province of /sci/.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 04:11:09 UTC No. 16275567

>>16275536
There is no need for the "nature of things" to stay the same, I would say your line of thought has that problem... If we start gaining knowledge about something we understand it better ever so slightly, the object being studied may change due to a multitude of reasons that doesn't invalidate what was learned. Alas empirical experimentation grant no knowledge by itself, it might just aid in the discovery of knowledge, it is but a tool for that.
That is the beauty of the scientific method the object itself is irrelevant, the pursuit of knowledge that is the goal, useful or not. Even if it is invalidated by another level of comprehension about the subject

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 05:03:08 UTC No. 16275593

>>16275567
>There is no need for the "nature of things" to stay the same
What? There is absolutely need for certain things to stay the same in order to claim you know something.
If you conduct an experiment 10,000 times and have yielded the same result, why can you claim you will KNOW the result of the 10,001 experiment? Because you assume whatever that is the nature of reality have stayed the same. If it didn't, the 10,001 experiment would yield a different result and then you suddenly realized you didn't really know anything, and every other theories and conjecture built on top of this now expired experiment comes all crashing down in spectacular fashion.

And to be clear, this is getting off the vending machine example. In that example, things are staying in the same, and despite their ignorant theories the monkies' mathematical model itself did acurately capture facts about the current state of the machine.

Science is necessary, and valuable, because the possibly temporary predictability its model bestows is needed in everyday life. However it is not, never has been, and never will be, a methodology to arrive at the complete truth, whatever that is. Its models will only ever yield temporary approximations and its theories, convenient fairy tales used for communications.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 05:35:33 UTC No. 16275610

If photon splits into multiple slits when nobody's looking, would earth be brighter if there was nobody to observe?
Would plants count as observers or could they use this effect for their photosynthesis and grow multiple times stronger?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 05:38:16 UTC No. 16275612

>>16275610
The looking part is a little misleading... It means measuring and it doesn't "split" and it isn't about photons

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 05:52:44 UTC No. 16275616

>>16275593
You do not KNOW the next result, what you KNOW is that it is most likely gonna happen as you understand it to, nothing prevents it from suddenly changing behavior, it's just unlikely that it will. Science isn't about finding the ONE TRUTH as we don't even know if it exists, only religion says it has the one and only truth... What you seem to be missing is that being wrong doesn't make the knowledge disappear, I know it might be different from the dogmatic standpoint you're taking but errors are knowledge, and are valuable for providing insight into the how and why of the object of study.
Consolidated theories don't come "crashing down" in spectacular manner, the knowledge they provided isn't discarded just built upon, even if a hypothesis becomes a accepted theory and then we find out it is incomplete it doesn't invalidate the understanding we had, just means it is incomplete. As I said before understanding isn't on a have or don't basis but a process that may or may not have a end in the ONE TRUE TRUTH you said there is. Your thoughts require a static universe with some kind of predefined set of rules to be discovered and only then we actually would understand, what I'm saying is it doesn't matter we don't fully understand, since we don't know if there is a fully to begin with...
Anyway, I've grown bored of this discussion as I don't like to entertain religious debates, nothing personal just don't think it's worth putting any more effort into it

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:47:58 UTC No. 16275670

I think we might live in a simulation

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:50:24 UTC No. 16275700

>>16275616
>You do not KNOW the next result, what you KNOW is that it is most likely gonna happen as you understand it to, nothing prevents it from suddenly changing behavior, it's just unlikely that it will.
Exactly.
>Science isn't about finding the ONE TRUTH as we don't even know if it exists
My point, hence all the "temporary" in my previous post.
>What you seem to be missing is that being wrong doesn't make the knowledge disappear
Again, it all depends on what reality is actually like.
What you say here only applies if reality is indeed static, like you are describing here in your own words
>require a static universe with some kind of predefined set of rules to be discovered
but for some reason saying I'm the one coming from this position.
I am not. I am literally the one here making the metaphysical point that reality might be fluid, of which if is the case, being wrong literally CAN make the knowledge disappear, because reality would have changed and moved on and your old experimental result expired. If something like this ever comes to pass, then it goes without saying all other theories built upon this experiment comes down in a heap.
>It doesn't matter we don't fully understand
For science at least, I agree it doesn't matter. Yours is to conjure up a model to predict {A-->B} with verifiable prediction and it's a job well done, as I've said in the very post that started the whole coversation. >>16273853

People like OP that keeps asking scientists about experiments with /x/ tier result need to understand it isn't for science to understand and interpret, only to predict. They ultimately don't have the answer you want.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:11:50 UTC No. 16275762

>>16275616
>what you do KNOW is that it is most likely gonna happen
You have no framework, theoretical or otherwise, with which to quantify ceteris paribus, i.e. holding all else constant --including the nature of the universe-- such that the next experiment yields the same result.

Stop pretending our lizard brains are anything more than pattern matchers optimized for proliferating genes. You are literally no better than christfags or mudslimes in making your knowledgr claim.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:21:36 UTC No. 16275769

>>16273628
pretty obvious, if you collide something with the blurry photons all paths way of moving, you force it to the point corresponding to how you collided with it, keep in mind "observation" just means "collision", light is fuzzy until you pinch it then it responds naturally to the pinch of the collision aka "observation" which is after all merely a collision

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:26:28 UTC No. 16275775

>>16275769
..except after you pinch it, it quickly becomes fuzzy again for no reason at all

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:56:25 UTC No. 16275792

>>16275769
>you force it to the point corresponding to how you collided with it
That makes no sense, it presupposes there is a definite spot where it's at and where it collides with something, how can something fuzzy "collide" in a definite spot?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:40:19 UTC No. 16275813

For all the retards who think the experiment has to do with photons, the original classical double slit experiment performed by Young was done to precisely show that light was a wave you stupid fucks. This was later confirmed by light being an electromagnetic wave, and it was the photo electric effect that suggested that light quanta also exists and behaves kinda like a particle. The double slit experiment shown by OP is literally a callback to the double slit by Young to illustrate that dually, particles such as electrons can also have wave-like qualities. Also, this experiment was carried out long after quantum mechanics was actually established, hell, it was popularized by Feynman as a thought experiment before any experiment was carried out. What confirmed the wave nature of electrons and matter in general was diffraction patterns formed from scattering with certain lattices.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:20:50 UTC No. 16275848

I fucking hate bell's theorem and the nobel prize committee for rewarding work related to that worthless piece of shit theorem. My only satisfaction is that bell himself never got the prize because he died too soon, lmao rekt.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:45:25 UTC No. 16275931

>>16275848
Fun fact for you. No Nobel prize in physics has ever been proven to be wrong.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:18:37 UTC No. 16275980

>>16275931
Bohr's atomic model: Am I a joke to you?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:20:50 UTC No. 16275983

>>16273661
>that predicts exactly what happens with incredible accuracy
quantum mechanics is indeterministic

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:22:05 UTC No. 16275987

>>16275983
Depends on your interpretation

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:21:40 UTC No. 16276130

>>16273628
PART 1/6

What are the biggest misconceptions about the double slit experiment?
There are a lot of them. A hell of a lot of them. One is that the double-slit is the “only” quantum mechanical experiment that’s important; that it encapsulates everything mysterious and non-classical about quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, that misconception can be backed up with a soundbite from Richard Feynman, so it’s probably here to stay.
1


But the biggest misconception is one that’s confidently introduced over and over, on Quora, across the internet, and in popular books.

I’ll call it the “pass-through detectors” myth.

The idea is that you’ve got some kind of “pass-through” photoelectric detectors. These are set up to go “bing” when one of the particles you’re using for the experiment go through it, but otherwise leave it completely undisturbed.

And when you place these detectors at the slits, the interference pattern disappears and is replaced with a “particle-like” pattern of just two peaks. That is, just by “looking at” their paths, you have forced the photons/electrons/whatever to behave like particles. Even more, when you leave these detectors in place, but just switch them off, the interference pattern comes back again.

Something like this illustration:

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:22:42 UTC No. 16276132

>>16273628
PART 2/6

(Double Slit Experiment. What effect does the detector actually cause?)

I have even seen people go further; confidently asserting that if one keeps the detectors on, but no-one “looks” at the read-outs from such detectors, the interference pattern reappears. If people think this happens, then it’s unsurprising that they also think that consciousness must be fundamentally involved in quantum mechanics.

So it’s probably worth stating this clearly.

This is a myth
No one has done this experiment
These kind of “passthrough” detectors that don’t disturb anything don’t exist.
Real detectors disturb things physically; in precise calculable ways, and in exactly the ways that are then observed.
These points should be obvious; it’s part of even the most popular presentations of quantum mechanics that observation of a system makes a physical difference to that system … yet this seems to be temporarily forgotten.

It is certainly true that if you put a standard photoelectric detector in front of the slits of a double-slit experiment — like they have in the illustration above — then it would detect particles and the interference pattern will vanish. But that’s because a standard photoelectric detector absorbs the particle that it detects. When it “clicks”, that is because the particle induces a cascade of electrons which is amplified up into a electric signal. Effectively, you’ve just blocked one (or both) of the slits. No wonder the interference pattern vanishes.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:23:53 UTC No. 16276135

>>16273628
PART 3/6


Of course there are many other types of detection scheme that don’t completely absorb the photon (or whatever other particle that’s being used in the experiment). Feynman considers one, where you shine a light on the electrons that are being shot through his apparatus to see which way the went (Section 1.6 here Quantum Behaviour). But Feynman’s whole point is that the electrons are disturbed by this measurement — they have their phase coherence destroyed by the interaction with the light. He even considers changing the intensity and wavelength of the source to show exactly how this happens. (Of course, since then, someone has performed Feynman’s thought experiment, just to see if it checked out. It did.)

More recently, researchers have become much, much more sophisticated, managing to introduce minimal amounts of disturbance. In studies like the 1999 Weizmann experiment (Dephasing in electron interference by a ‘which-path’ detector), the experimenters put together a minimal “quantum observer” that let the electron current through without change.

But, again, the action of the detector does affect the phase of the electrons (the clue’s in the paper’s title). And messing with this phase still messes with the interference pattern. The Weizmann team were even able to dial up and down the interference pattern by turning up and down the amount they were messing with the phase, which tracked precisely how well they were able to detect the paths of their electrons.

What no-one can do is to somehow “look” at the way the particles have gone without affecting them in a real, physical way that affects the wavefunction one uses to calculate the results at the screen.

The reason (I think) that people think they have seen such an experiment with non-disturbing measurements at the slits, is because they’ve mushed together a bunch of concepts like …

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:25:10 UTC No. 16276137

>>16273628
PART 4/6

The “tagging” techniques used by the quantum eraser and delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments — they “tag” the particles with polarisation to make sure that the path can be inferred, but again, they disturb the particles in doing so
The Weizmann and similar “minimal disturbance” measurements, with unhelpful write-ups that spend all their time emphasising how little the particles were disturbed
“Interaction-free measurements”, just keeping the buzzwords, not looking at what’s involved in these techniques.
Various pieces of “quantum information” terminology that are unhelpful if used without care and attention
… and with enough confusion, people can come out the other end absolutely sure that the “passthrough” detectors must exist and that they’ve been used in the double-slit experiment. They don’t, and they haven’t.

Right. I know from experience that at this point, some people will be fuming. They have definitely seen reports of experiments with “pass-through detectors” at the slits and no one will tell them otherwise.

But before commenting, please consider a reductio argument. If these detectors existed, no one would be having a debate about whether consciousness induces wavefunction collapse. For one could just set up an experiment like this:

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:26:20 UTC No. 16276141

>>16273628
PART 5/6

Put together a normal double-slit setup, with an interference pattern on the screen.
Add one of these “passthrough detectors” at each slit, and (apparently) the interference pattern vanishes?
Now put the “clicker” or computer logger, or whatever you are using to amplify these measurements up to consciousness in a nearby but heavily soundproofed room such that only someone in that room could be conscious of them.
If consciousness were required for collapse, you could test for the presence of consciousness in that other room. You could tell by whether the interference pattern appeared on your lab screen. Or you could test whether specific animals (dogs, cats, mice) are conscious by putting them in that room and seeing the interference pattern in your lab would disappear or not….
On the other hand, if consciousness were not required for collapse, then the pattern would disappear, whoever or whatever was in that room.
Therefore hard-nosed physicists could use this experiment to empirically test whether consciousness is involved in collapse or not.
OK, so why has no one done this experiment — doesn’t it seem kind of decisive about a rather important question?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:27:28 UTC No. 16276142

>>16273628
PART 6/6

They’ve not done it because — again — these detectors don’t exist. Real detectors “collapse” the interference pattern due to the (entirely physical, entirely calculable) disturbances they introduce into the phases of the particles that travel to the screen. This disturbance, and its effect on the interference pattern can be calculated from the usual rules of quantum mechanics, while remaining entirely agnostic on the nature of measurement, of consciousness or anything else; the answers come out the same.

The double slit experiment is certainly weird and counter-intuitive. There is no denying that. But this is all the more reason to get rid of the misconceptions that make it even harder to understand.

1
The double slit experiment doesn’t have multi-particle entanglement in it. And that introduces a whole different level of non-classical behaviour than just wave-particle duality.

I found this explanation somewhere on internet, I hope its not a BS, from reading it makes double-slit experiment make more sense

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:29:55 UTC No. 16276145

>>16275980
What's wrong with it? It's works and was correct about fixed energy levels and why they have those values. It's still taught in undergrad physics and chemistry. Just because it was superseded by better theories doesn't make it incorrect, it was a huge leap in understanding at the time.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:37:15 UTC No. 16276148

>>16273628
why double slit specifically? not triple slit?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:40:29 UTC No. 16276151

>>16275983
> indeterministic
That doesn't make QM less accurate, it accurately predicts the probability of events. So yes, a single measurement is inherently unpredictable but in bulk that is not the case.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:42:51 UTC No. 16276154

>>16276148
You need a minimum of two slits to create an interference pattern so three slits would also work. However it's simpler to perform experimentally and to calculate with only two, there's no benefit to use more.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:33:55 UTC No. 16276755

>>16276142
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.6243 There is an actual realization of the experiment in Feynman's terms. I don't get what misconception are you talking about but i'm not sure if that really is the problem. The point isn't really the "pass-through" detector I think this can be confusing, the point is that when you measure the position of a particle, by any means, you not only disturb it, but you change the nature of the electron in an irreversible way and so the original distribution is lost. But certainly you could let it be measured and then passed and measure again the electron in the screen behind it. Sequential measurements are fundamental to understand this and it is why people say that by observing you destroy the interference pattern. The thing is that even if it doesn't go bing on the mask gate, this is also a measurement since you can infer that the electron didn't went through the first gate. This is mathematically what it means to make an observation for the position operator, collapsing the wave function into a subset. But this projection doesn't mean that the electron physically must stop, but since the wave function changes the distribution of momenta change and you destroy the pattern. Sequential Stern-Gerlach experiments exactly show this.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 03:04:12 UTC No. 16276851

>>16276145
>What's wrong with it?
It's not quantum mechanics. It's an adhoc fix which only works for a single hydrogen atom, so it's wrong.
>It's still taught in undergrad physics and chemistry
So because dumb lies are taught to morons, that makes them true? Retard

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 06:05:15 UTC No. 16276946

>>16276851
So we should stop teaching Newton in school then because it's also wrong?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 06:43:59 UTC No. 16276955

Is this fag talking about how we don't have a theory for wave function collapse? I mean we have quantum mechanics, but there's little we can say about the dynamics of collapse other than the measurement needs to result in an eigenstate

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:41:05 UTC No. 16276993

>>16276946
Total non-sequitur. I accept your concession that bohr's atomic model is wrong and hence your post 16275931 is invalidated

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:15:44 UTC No. 16277154

>>16276993
good job demonstrating to everyone you're a complete idiot.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:21:50 UTC No. 16277161

>>16277154
>no you!
Lol, ok retard

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:27:05 UTC No. 16277166

>>16274357
All knoledge and understanding is ultimately based on axioms. Maybe one day we can create new deeper axioms, but at some point there will always be statements of truth which cannot be broken down any further.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:47:56 UTC No. 16277191

>>16276851
>which only works for a single hydrogen atom, so it's wrong
It works for other atoms. The problem is that closed form solutions don't exist and it's unclear how to include neutron interactions

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:50:29 UTC No. 16277195

>>16276993
> I'm right because I said so
Great argument moron.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:36:45 UTC No. 16277243

>>16277191
I'm referring to bohr's model, not quantum mechanics. Learn to read

>>16277195
You admitted that newtonian mechanics was wrong, just like bohr's model. Keep up, "buddy"

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:56:15 UTC No. 16277356

>>16277243
Bohrs model IS quantum mechanics you fuckin pseud. It's literally just the solution to Schrodinger's equation for the hydrogen atom. What you're whining about is extending it to hydrogen like atoms which obviously doesn't work well. But heavier atoms most certainly can be analyzed in the same way with Schrodinger's equation numerically. The problem is the neutron interactions

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:02:01 UTC No. 16277362

>>16277356
>Bohrs model IS quantum mechanics you fuckin pseud
Holyyy fkin shitt. Why do they let people like you attend universities?? Bohr's model is not quantum mechanics because electrons move in orbits with fixed radii in bohr's model whereas they don't even have positions in quantum mechanics.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:09:38 UTC No. 16277370

>>16273667
So it seems like photons can receive signals, and our eyes are seemingly able to send out signals to these photons. It seems like we are in constant communication with the world around us, rather we are aware of it or not.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:35:01 UTC No. 16277414

>>16277362
>Knowing it's a radius away, but not where along that circumference violates the uncertainty principle
Retard. Pseud. Dumbass. Burn your degree, you're an idiot

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:45:35 UTC No. 16277428

>>16277414
It absolutely does. Radial position = fixed => radial momentum is varying => electron moves to a different radius, so can't have fixed energy => bohr's model is shit

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:50:14 UTC No. 16277433

>>16277428
Holy shit you really don't understand the uncertainty principle do you? You can't just rewrite the linear equation (dxdp ≥ h) into the spherical one (drdp ≥ h)
Not to mention that you're actually a fucking retard because you should be using the angular distance and the angular momentum. Why mix radial distance and linear momentum, oh right because you're an idiot. It's dtheta dL ≥ h. You really are inexhaustibly, incontrovertibly, irreparably retarded. You couldn't even give the derivation of the uncertainty principle if your degree depended in it. And btw yes a derivation exists which is metric dependent.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:04:07 UTC No. 16277454

>>16277428
Remind you of anything?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_ring
Fyi the uncertainty principle doesn't apply here. Obviously.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:13:42 UTC No. 16277464

>>16277433
Your stupid af. It's obvious that there exists a commutation relation between radius and radial momentum and no I will not fucking prove it. Go fuck yourself. You really think circular orbits are stationary states for the coulomb potential? How the fuck are you even real. To be so desperate to suck bohr's dick despite being so wrong
>>16277454
>you can do quantum mechanics on a circle
>therefore electrons go in circular orbits
Stop spreading your brain-killing viruses everywhere dipshit

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:41:44 UTC No. 16277484

>>16277464
>there exists a commutation relation between radius and radial momentum and no I will not fucking prove it. Go fuck yourself.
Wrong. You won't prove it because it can't be done and even if it could you lack the ability. Dumbass.
Particle on a ring solution to Schrodinger's equation has far reaching applications. Not only does it reproduce bohrs model, it also applies to more complicated chemical structures. You'd know this if you weren't a larping pseud. Actually kys.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:43:25 UTC No. 16277487

>>16274352
It’s the same in math. At the very bottom are the axioms that cannot be explained in terms of anything else, you must simply assume them to be true.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:05:08 UTC No. 16277506

>>16277487
>It’s the same in math
t. non-mathematician

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:06:33 UTC No. 16277508

>>16277506
He's right you know
t. mathematician

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:09:38 UTC No. 16277512

>>16277508
We don't assume anything to be "just true" lmao, even 1+1 = 2 has rigorous proof behind it.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:11:05 UTC No. 16277513

>>16277512
Lol. Lmao even

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:14:04 UTC No. 16277517

>>16277512
How do you know those axioms from which you "derive" 1 + 1 = 2 are true? How do you know your derivation is correct? That's right, you don't. Lmao

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:16:23 UTC No. 16277521

>>16277513
cope
>>16277517
i derive that you're a retarded wordcel fag from your gibberish

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:20:55 UTC No. 16277525

>>16277521
>"hehe le math is le riguruss unlike le other fields"
>"Can you justify that rigorously?"
>"nooo nottt lyk dat! u wordcel!"
Jeez, you're embarrassing

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:32 UTC No. 16277544

>>16277484
>even if it could you lack the ability. Dumbass.
Already backpedaling. LOL
> Not only does it reproduce bohrs model
So infinitely many energy levels for a single radius is reproducing bohr's model? AHAHAHAAHA. Fucking retarded schizo

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:38:49 UTC No. 16277556

>>16277484
Also,
>the n-th energy level goes like n^2 instead of 1/n^2 like it's supposed to in bohr's model
> Not only does it reproduce bohrs model
> Not only does it reproduce bohrs model
> Not only does it reproduce bohrs model
LMAO. Fucking hilariously retarded

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:43:42 UTC No. 16277565

>>16277544
>>16277556
>Seething for a whole ten minutes or more
Let me help you out bro. Instead of R = const, permit R to change in accordance to n. Solve the shcrodinger equation
You get the bohr model. Don't believe me? Write E(n,r_n) for the bohr model, then plug in r_n(n) and see what happens.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:48:00 UTC No. 16277575

>>16277565
Shut up retard, you clowned yourself when you said infinitely many energy levels for a single radius is bohr's model
>b-but you can change R to get whatever energy you want!
Just stop already, clown

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:49:13 UTC No. 16277576

>>16277575
I accept your concessions, retard. Just admit you can't do the derivation or see the connection. Would be less embarrassing for you. Fucking retard pseud.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:55:41 UTC No. 16277585

>>16277576
You're the most braindead little bitch I've ever seen on the internet.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:59:04 UTC No. 16277587

>>16277585
kek you queers can't even agree on a model of an atom there's no way we are solving the dual slot paradox

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:09:21 UTC No. 16277610

>>16273628
There is no such thing as an electron particle. J.J Thomson the guy that discovered the electron called it a singe unit of dielectric induction. There are no electrons particles flowing inside power lines that are transfering energy, its the field or aether around the wire which acts as a conductor to guide the aether fluxuation.
Light is just an aether perturbation, theres no such thing as photons.

https://youtu.be/bHIhgxav9LY

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:09:21 UTC No. 16277611

>>16277585
lmao ur getting ur ass handed in this thread

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:55:15 UTC No. 16279133

>>16275848
dunno why they don't introduce some kinda posthumous award

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:57:17 UTC No. 16279135

Stochastic Mechanics proves interference can be achieved by localozed particles undergoing random perturbation. Rather simple really.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 19:46:23 UTC No. 16279233

>>16279133
It's for ego inflating. Can't stroke a decomposed man's cock.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 04:31:09 UTC No. 16279861

>>16277610
YWNBAP

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 04:49:24 UTC No. 16279881

>>16273628
Because, just like anons in this thread, they are more interested in their ego than science.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:50:59 UTC No. 16280091

>>16273628

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 10:20:46 UTC No. 16280115

>>16273724
>But the experiment is with electrons.
/sci will neither care nor understand the difference
It's not reproducible btw. Typical academic fraud

🗑️ Barkon, Vard and Worl at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 10:37:21 UTC No. 16280130

>>16280115
I'm riding the wave.

Let's see if this works

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 10:42:05 UTC No. 16280133

>>16274309
Retard, an explanation is meant to clarify a point you made. It is possible to explain something when the person you're talking to is satisfied with your point. When the person is satisfied, you successfully explained something.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:49:18 UTC No. 16280410

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-024-00752-y

quantum mechanics has been solved. just particle moving about randomly

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:18:03 UTC No. 16280438

>>16274309
Well said.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:29:34 UTC No. 16280547

>>16274960
>That one faint voice of reason in a loudness war between actual literal sub100 IQ NPCs

Have a (You) good sir.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 22:58:15 UTC No. 16280769

>>16280547
bohmian mechanics is the faulty version of stochastic mechanics