Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381356 > unrolled thread

Waves - fundamental or emergent ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:15 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:23 -0700
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:20 -0500
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:34 -0700
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:01 -0500
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:55 -0700
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:55 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:58 -0500
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:54 -0700
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:03 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 03:21 -0700
                  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 11:55 -0500
                    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:25 -0700
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:05 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-13 21:10 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:02 -0700
                  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 12:45 +1000
                    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:25 -0700
                    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:31 -0700
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 16:24 +1000
                        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:13 -0400
                          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:40 +1000
                        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 02:44 -0700
                          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:11 -0700
                            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:07 -0700
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:15 -0500
                    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:27 -0400
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:42 +1000
                        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-16 06:39 +0200
                          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-16 18:43 +1000
                            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-16 05:57 -0700
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:19 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:10 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:45 -0700
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-12 06:45 +0200
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-14 04:24 +0200
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:52 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? bruntlybunky <bruntlybunky@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 15:12 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#381356 — Waves - fundamental or emergent ?

Recently I've been giving some thought to the possibility of new type of physical phenomena, which may be difficult but possible to unveil. This phenomena might be of equal importance as energy. I will have to think of ways to generate evidence of this "thing", but I already have some ideas. 

So I will propose a new type of phenomena, in order to try and settle our differences and problems regarding particle-wave duality. I also think it might be possible to test the hypothesis and find evidence for it. We might even consider the implications of an existing experiment, namely the dbl slit, and evaluate that for the purposes of qualifying this theory in the interim - it doesn't yet make any predictions, so I'll build some math for it later. 

Let's call this phenomena or property of quantum systems a "non-particle entanglement coupling" which is a physical relationship existing between particles separated by some length of space that is of non-particle origin. This coupling causes particles to be attached together in some way across time and space and may be responsible for quantum entanglement as well as the emergence of waves.

We know that this coupling doesn't take the form of energy, as it might form FTL or 'instantaneous' relationships between particles. Also, this coupling would be allowing particles of energy to work in groups 'as waves' and therefore, it would not be possible for energy to be forming these relationships between particles.

These couplings have a kind of viscosity to them, allowing them to be stretch or pulled, according to the energy propagating through it.. In this way, they would be analogous to the viscous coupling unit on the prop shaft of a 4wd vehicle.

The first thing that comes to mind with the dbl slit experiment, is that the interference pattern itself doesn't appear to emerge with the first electron, or even few, but as subsequent electrons hit the screen, the distribution indicates interfering waves. As this interefernce becomes increasingly apparent, there seems to be something 'emergent' about the transition from particle to wave.  

But the thing that I'm questioning, since these electrons have presumably been entangled at the source, is it possible that entanglement is causing the subsequent distribution as additional additional electrons hit the screen ? If this is so, the delayed outcome of waves apparent in the interferometry could indicate evidence for the entanglement couplings I suggest that exist between particles. 


-y

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#381357

In the dbl slit experiment, firing electrons, one every few seconds over the course of an hour or so, we can see an interference pattern emerging. Now, this interference pattern becomes more apparent with the more electrons we fire. 


There seems to be something making the wave exist, before it does exist. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381362

On 4/11/2016 10:23 AM, Y wrote:
> In the dbl slit experiment, firing electrons, one every few seconds over the
> course of an hour or so, we can see an interference pattern emerging. Now, this
> interference pattern becomes more apparent with the more electrons we fire.
>
>
> There seems to be something making the wave exist, before it does exist.
>
> -y
>

The electron wave is not the interference pattern. You are confusing the 
propagating wave that accounts for interference with the wavy pattern 
that appears on the screen. Not at all the same thing.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381365

You may have read me incorrectly OddBod. The interference pattern on the screen shows that there are waves. But since the waves must be carried by particles, this should necessitate that there is some physical coupling between particles allowing the wave to emerge. Even if we delay the firing of each subsequent particle, by a few seconds, the wave like distribution still emerges. I think waves are emergent therefore. What Im suggesting is that it's these couplings along with the  particles that are fundamental..

~y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381367

On 4/11/2016 11:34 AM, Y wrote:
> You may have read me incorrectly OddBod. The interference pattern on the screen shows
> that there are waves. But since the waves must be carried by particles,

Woah, stop right there. What makes you think waves must be carried by 
particles?

> this should necessitate that there is some physical coupling between particles allowing
> the wave to emerge.

IF there are particles yes.

> Even if we delay the firing of each subsequent particle, by a few seconds, the wave like
> distribution still emerges.

Right, but the interference isn't caused by the interference of the wave 
from one particle with the wave from the subsequent particle. That would 
be the point. Each particle that gets sent through the double slit -- or 
rather the wave you associate with an electron -- interferes WITH 
ITSELF, not with the next electron.

> I think waves are emergent therefore. What Im suggesting is that it's these couplings along
> with the  particles that are fundamental..
>
> ~y
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381409

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:01:05 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/11/2016 11:34 AM, Y wrote:
> > You may have read me incorrectly OddBod. The interference pattern on the screen shows
> > that there are waves. But since the waves must be carried by particles,
> 
> Woah, stop right there. What makes you think waves must be carried by 
> particles?


What makes you think that it is possible to scientifically detect a wave that is not "had" by some particles ? 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381434

On 4/11/2016 8:55 PM, Y wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:01:05 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/11/2016 11:34 AM, Y wrote:
>>> You may have read me incorrectly OddBod. The interference pattern on the screen shows
>>> that there are waves. But since the waves must be carried by particles,
>>
>> Woah, stop right there. What makes you think waves must be carried by
>> particles?
>
>
> What makes you think that it is possible to scientifically detect a wave that is
> not "had" by some particles ?

I'm not following your argument. Electromagnetic radiation was detected 
for decades without relying on any particle nature.

>
> -y
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381368

On 4/11/2016 11:34 AM, Y wrote:
> You may have read me incorrectly OddBod. The interference pattern on the screen shows that
> there are waves. But since the waves must be carried by particles, this should necessitate
> that there is some physical coupling between particles allowing the wave to emerge. Even if
> we delay the firing of each subsequent particle, by a few seconds, the wave like distribution
> still emerges. I think waves are emergent therefore. What Im suggesting is that it's these
> couplings along with the  particles that are fundamental..
>
> ~y
>

I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this today. Let's 
take the case of electrons fired from an electron gun at a double slit, 
where there is an electron-sensitive screen behind that records where 
the electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the word 
"photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be no change in the 
statements. (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion" 
or "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)

The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is an 
indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron. The fact that all 
the energy of the electron is deposited all at once and all in one place 
is an indicator of the particlelike properties of the electron. However, 
it is not necessary that the electron is a particle that carries an 
associated wave, or that the electron is a wave that carries an 
associated particle. Instead, the electron is just an electron and BOTH 
sets of properties are true of it. That is, what we call an "electron" 
is a quantum field that exhibits BOTH particle properties and wave 
properties, but it is neither a particle nor a wave.

What is particularly interesting is that the interference pattern still 
appears whether you fire the electrons in bunches or one at a time. This 
tells you that it is not interference of one electron with a following 
electron. It is in fact the interference of the one electron WITH 
ITSELF. That is, there is an electron field for that one electron that 
passes through BOTH slits, and what you are seeing is the result of the 
interference between the field through both slits. (You can test the 
hypothesis whether what's interfering are subsequent electrons. You 
would presume that the coupling between electrons would diminish with 
the interval of time between electrons. Then you can test this simply by 
seeing whether the interference pattern changes with the interval of 
time between electrons. You'll find that there is no change, and 
therefore it's not coupling between subsequent electrons that's 
responsible for the interference.)

So the explanation of the behavior is consistent with the electron 
passing through both of the slits simultaneously, though the electron 
ultimately appears only in one place on the screen; and the same is true 
for every subsequent electron.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381413

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this today. Let's 
> take the case of electrons fired from an electron gun at a double slit, 
> where there is an electron-sensitive screen behind that records where 
> the electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the word 
> "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be no change in the 
> statements. (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion" 
> or "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)

Sure. 

> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is an 
> indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron. 

Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons hitting the screen. 

> The fact that all 
> the energy of the electron is deposited all at once and all in one place 
> is an indicator of the particlelike properties of the electron. However, 
> it is not necessary that the electron is a particle that carries an 
> associated wave, or that the electron is a wave that carries an 
> associated particle. 

Which is not inconsistent with anything I've said. Waves are carried 'by' particles, rather than particles necessarily have an associated wave. If only one electron is fired, then the wave cannot be detected or observed.  

> Instead, the electron is just an electron and BOTH 
> sets of properties are true of it. 

I don't think the wave is a property of individual electrons. That property only becomes apparent when many are observed. 

> That is, what we call an "electron" 
> is a quantum field that exhibits BOTH particle properties and wave 
> properties, but it is neither a particle nor a wave.

A field is type of model describing how particles 'move' in a certain region of space and time by associating phenomena to real numbers. For example, vector and scalar fields can be used to describe direction and intensity of air particles moving around the globe - weather maps. 

> What is particularly interesting is that the interference pattern still 
> appears whether you fire the electrons in bunches or one at a time. 

Yeah.. the wave seems predetermined doesn't it ? Maybe this is because waves aren't exactly fundamental but only emerge by distribution ? 

Would you say that marbles on a peg board behave like ways ? Because they do you know, if you apply the same reasoning. 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/GaltonBoard_1000.gif 

> This 
> tells you that it is not interference of one electron with a following 
> electron. It is in fact the interference of the one electron WITH 
> ITSELF. 

I disagree. 

> That is, there is an electron field for that one electron that 
> passes through BOTH slits, and what you are seeing is the result of the 
> interference between the field through both slits.

I disagree. I think super-positioning is baloney. It's an imagined possibility derived from the absence of evidence. It's pseudo-scientific. I think Schrodinger's Cat is pseudoscience. 

Science is founded on the act of observation, not what might be behind closed doors. 

>  (You can test the 
> hypothesis whether what's interfering are subsequent electrons. You 
> would presume that the coupling between electrons would diminish with 
> the interval of time between electrons. 

Why would the coupling diminish after a time. It doesn't, I can assure you. The coupling only diminishes when observational conditions change or affect the coupling. Such as when another observer is placed near the slit. 

Let me recast what scientists actually say about this. They think it's quantum "weirdness" and that somehow the electrons "know" they are being observed. More pseudoscience. 


> Then you can test this simply by 
> seeing whether the interference pattern changes with the interval of 
> time between electrons. You'll find that there is no change, and 
> therefore it's not coupling between subsequent electrons that's 
> responsible for the interference.)

I disagree. It might be. There might be an entangled coupling anchoring all of the fired electrons into a wave like distribution on the screen. 

> So the explanation of the behavior is consistent with the electron 
> passing through both of the slits simultaneously, though the electron 
> ultimately appears only in one place on the screen; and the same is true 
> for every subsequent electron.

I don't think sufficient evidence is produced to show that two superpositioned electrons pass through the slits. Only one hits the screen, and it is the "screen" where we make an observation here, not anywhere else. 

Thankyou for recasting the evaluation as it is now understood OddBod. I already knew this, but thanks again, it's well written according to that interpretation. 

-y 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381435

On 4/11/2016 9:54 PM, Y wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this today. Let's
>> take the case of electrons fired from an electron gun at a double slit,
>> where there is an electron-sensitive screen behind that records where
>> the electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the word
>> "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be no change in the
>> statements. (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion"
>> or "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>
> Sure.
>
>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is an
>> indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
>
> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only 'emerges' and becomes
> more apparent with the more electrons hitting the screen.

That's because of the particlelike nature of light that it deposits all 
its energy in one place at one time. So?

>
>> The fact that all
>> the energy of the electron is deposited all at once and all in one place
>> is an indicator of the particlelike properties of the electron. However,
>> it is not necessary that the electron is a particle that carries an
>> associated wave, or that the electron is a wave that carries an
>> associated particle.
>
> Which is not inconsistent with anything I've said. Waves are carried 'by'
> particles, rather than particles necessarily have an associated wave. If
> only one electron is fired, then the wave cannot be detected or observed.

I don't know what the quotation remarks around 'by' are supposed to 
convey. OK, so with one quantum you can't see wave interference. So?

>
>> Instead, the electron is just an electron and BOTH
>> sets of properties are true of it.
>
> I don't think the wave is a property of individual electrons. That property
> only becomes apparent when many are observed.

The apparentness of it isn't particularly relevant. What matters is what 
governs that electron's behavior.

>
>> That is, what we call an "electron"
>> is a quantum field that exhibits BOTH particle properties and wave
>> properties, but it is neither a particle nor a wave.
>
> A field is type of model describing how particles 'move' in a certain region
> of space and time by associating phenomena to real numbers. For example, vector
> and scalar fields can be used to describe direction and intensity of air particles
> moving around the globe - weather maps.

I think fields cover more ground than motion.

>
>> What is particularly interesting is that the interference pattern still
>> appears whether you fire the electrons in bunches or one at a time.
>
> Yeah.. the wave seems predetermined doesn't it ? Maybe this is because
> waves aren't exactly fundamental but only emerge by distribution ?
>
> Would you say that marbles on a peg board behave like ways ? Because they
> do you know, if you apply the same reasoning.
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/GaltonBoard_1000.gif
>
>> This
>> tells you that it is not interference of one electron with a following
>> electron. It is in fact the interference of the one electron WITH
>> ITSELF.
>
> I disagree.

OK, you disagree. The models of quantum mechanics are extraordinary 
successful.

>
>> That is, there is an electron field for that one electron that
>> passes through BOTH slits, and what you are seeing is the result of the
>> interference between the field through both slits.
>
> I disagree. I think super-positioning is baloney. It's an imagined possibility
> derived from the absence of evidence.

What do you mean, absence of evidence?

> It's pseudo-scientific. I think Schrodinger's Cat is pseudoscience.
>
> Science is founded on the act of observation, not what might be behind closed doors.

OK, so where is the observation of the coupling between an electron and 
the subsequent electron, regardless of the distance or the emission time 
between them?

>
>>   (You can test the
>> hypothesis whether what's interfering are subsequent electrons. You
>> would presume that the coupling between electrons would diminish with
>> the interval of time between electrons.
>
> Why would the coupling diminish after a time. It doesn't, I can assure you. The
> coupling only diminishes when observational conditions change or affect the
> coupling. Such as when another observer is placed near the slit.
>
> Let me recast what scientists actually say about this. They think it's quantum
> "weirdness" and that somehow the electrons "know" they are being observed.
> More pseudoscience.

Now, now, what pop sci babble have you been reading?

>
>
>> Then you can test this simply by
>> seeing whether the interference pattern changes with the interval of
>> time between electrons. You'll find that there is no change, and
>> therefore it's not coupling between subsequent electrons that's
>> responsible for the interference.)
>
> I disagree. It might be. There might be an entangled coupling anchoring all
> of the fired electrons into a wave like distribution on the screen.
>
>> So the explanation of the behavior is consistent with the electron
>> passing through both of the slits simultaneously, though the electron
>> ultimately appears only in one place on the screen; and the same is true
>> for every subsequent electron.
>
> I don't think sufficient evidence is produced to show that two superpositioned
> electrons

Not two superpositioned electrons. There is only one electron. Two 
histories, maybe. One electron.

> pass through the slits. Only one hits the screen, and it is the "screen" where
> we make an observation here, not anywhere else.
>
> Thankyou for recasting the evaluation as it is now understood OddBod. I
> already knew this, but thanks again, it's well written according to that interpretation.
>
> -y
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381501

OddBod..

Yeah, there could be evidence for the coupling or even evidence to get rid of it! It would be the ontological and underlying physical cause allowing there to be a wave at all. But maybe we can test to eliminate the coupling ?!

We can test the existence of the coupling by firing electrons, one at a time, and if a distribution occurs, (preventing all the photons from landing in the same place), then something between the particles is governing the emergence of a wave...or else we might imagine why they do not all land in exactly the same place. It's as though the distribution is pre-determined. 

Now we can turn it on its head and eliminate wave altogether. Since if this coupling is not physical, maybe there's no wave at all ? Maybe this is purely a distribution in the dbl slit ? Maybe we've confused a distribution for a wave ?

Supposing we take a Galton board, and watch a few handfuls of marbles distribute into a bell curve. We can treat this as an analogy for dbl slit experiment as a distribution of particles emerges on the screen.

Now, supposing for our Galton board we treat each peg as an observer, just like those used in dbl slit. The pegs on our Galton board are now detectors gathering info about the path taken by the balls on the way down.

When we add or remove pegs, it changes the distribution. Gay wave function. It's bullshit. We can vary the outcome with measurement, just as we can vary the distribution of marbles by adding or removing our pegs on the Galton board.

With enough tests, changing locations of observers, or even adding new ones, we should know exactly what an outcome will be, and what distribution takes place. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381527

On 4/13/2016 5:21 AM, Y wrote:
> We can test the existence of the coupling by firing electrons, one at a time, and if a
> distribution occurs, (preventing all the photons from landing in the same place), then
> something between the particles is governing the emergence of a wave...or else we might
> imagine why they do not all land in exactly the same place. It's as though the
> distribution is pre-determined.

The distribution IS predetermined, but you'd be wrong to jump to the 
conclusion that there is coupling between the particles that produces 
that. As mentioned earlier, the SELF-interference of the electron 
predetermines this pattern. It would be wrong to conclude that if each 
and every electron interferes with itself, then they would land in the 
same spot every time.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381572

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 2:55:49 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/13/2016 5:21 AM, Y wrote:
> > We can test the existence of the coupling by firing electrons, one at a time, and if a
> > distribution occurs, (preventing all the photons from landing in the same place), then
> > something between the particles is governing the emergence of a wave...or else we might
> > imagine why they do not all land in exactly the same place. It's as though the
> > distribution is pre-determined.
> 
> The distribution IS predetermined, but you'd be wrong to jump to the 
> conclusion that there is coupling between the particles that produces 
> that. As mentioned earlier, the SELF-interference of the electron 
> predetermines this pattern. 

Woah, hang on a second, this evaluation that there is self interference is equally wrong, because self interference would require a coupling. 

I'm happy to ditch the entire idea of couplings, but with it, this is no longer a wave, it's a distribution. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381953

On 4/13/2016 8:25 PM, Y wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 2:55:49 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/13/2016 5:21 AM, Y wrote:
>>> We can test the existence of the coupling by firing electrons, one at a time, and if a
>>> distribution occurs, (preventing all the photons from landing in the same place), then
>>> something between the particles is governing the emergence of a wave...or else we might
>>> imagine why they do not all land in exactly the same place. It's as though the
>>> distribution is pre-determined.
>>
>> The distribution IS predetermined, but you'd be wrong to jump to the
>> conclusion that there is coupling between the particles that produces
>> that. As mentioned earlier, the SELF-interference of the electron
>> predetermines this pattern.
>
> Woah, hang on a second, this evaluation that there is self interference is equally wrong, because
> self interference would require a coupling.

??
No.
Superposition of waves does not imply physical coupling.

>
> I'm happy to ditch the entire idea of couplings, but with it, this is no longer a wave, it's
> a distribution.

I have no idea what YOU think a wave entails.

>
> -y
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381502

On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this today.
>> Let's take the case of electrons fired from an electron gun at a
>> double slit, where there is an electron-sensitive screen behind
>> that records where the electrons land. In what follows, you can
>> substitute the word "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there
>> would be no change in the statements. (Or, for that matter, you can
>> substitute "proton" or "pion" or "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom"
>> or "neutrino".)
>
> Sure.
>
>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is an
>> indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
>
> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons hitting
> the screen.
>

You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one per hour. 
Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381503

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this today.
> >> Let's take the case of electrons fired from an electron gun at a
> >> double slit, where there is an electron-sensitive screen behind
> >> that records where the electrons land. In what follows, you can
> >> substitute the word "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there
> >> would be no change in the statements. (Or, for that matter, you can
> >> substitute "proton" or "pion" or "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom"
> >> or "neutrino".)
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> >> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is an
> >> indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
> >
> > Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
> > 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons hitting
> > the screen.
> >
> 
> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one per hour. 
> Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
> 
> Sylvia.

Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave interference, what we have is a distribution ? 

I am looking into Galton Board simulators now, where I change the conditions of the board to produce outcomes analagous to dbl slit experiments. 

If it turns out to be the case that our distribution is affected by the placement of pegs (for example), - a mixture of available pathways and observers (each peg is an observer), then perhaps a similar thing happens with dbl slit ? 

I'm working out now, how to set up the Galton board to produce a distribution that looks like an interference pattern in dbl slit.

Of course, what's interesting about this, is that it shows 'how' we set up our observers will determine what the outcomes will be. Each variation of the experiment could be mapped, for repeatability, until we know more clearly what variations will produce what distributions. 

In this way, I predict it will be possible to know what outcomes will be. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381583

On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this
>>>> today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an electron
>>>> gun at a double slit, where there is an electron-sensitive
>>>> screen behind that records where the electrons land. In what
>>>> follows, you can substitute the word "photon" for "electron"
>>>> everywhere, and there would be no change in the statements.
>>>> (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion" or
>>>> "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is
>>>> an indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
>>>
>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
>>> hitting the screen.
>>>
>>
>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one per
>> hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are
> a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave
> interference, what we have is a distribution ?

You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to 
construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different 
predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be 
mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all.

So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can 
show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of 
some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be done.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381584

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:45:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this
> >>>> today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an electron
> >>>> gun at a double slit, where there is an electron-sensitive
> >>>> screen behind that records where the electrons land. In what
> >>>> follows, you can substitute the word "photon" for "electron"
> >>>> everywhere, and there would be no change in the statements.
> >>>> (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion" or
> >>>> "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
> >>>
> >>> Sure.
> >>>
> >>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is
> >>>> an indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
> >>>
> >>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
> >>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
> >>> hitting the screen.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one per
> >> hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are
> > a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave
> > interference, what we have is a distribution ?
> 
> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to 
> construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different 
> predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be 
> mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all.
> 
> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can 
> show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of 
> some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be done.
> 
> Sylvia.


Yes, and I'm suggesting making methodical changes to setup of apparatus, so that outcomes can approach being guided towards greater certainty and lesser uncertainty. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381585

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:45:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this
> >>>> today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an electron
> >>>> gun at a double slit, where there is an electron-sensitive
> >>>> screen behind that records where the electrons land. In what
> >>>> follows, you can substitute the word "photon" for "electron"
> >>>> everywhere, and there would be no change in the statements.
> >>>> (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion" or
> >>>> "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
> >>>
> >>> Sure.
> >>>
> >>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is
> >>>> an indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
> >>>
> >>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
> >>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
> >>> hitting the screen.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one per
> >> hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are
> > a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave
> > interference, what we have is a distribution ?
> 
> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to 
> construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different 
> predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be 
> mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all.
> 
> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can 
> show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of 
> some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be done.
> 
> Sylvia.

The predictions aren't exactly reliable in terms of knowledge are they ? If probabilistic predictions were knowledge, then casinos all around the world would be out of business. 

My father operates casinos. About the only reliable method of ensuring success is to slightly vary the balance of odds giving punters the illusion of possible success within a certain betting frame. Such as the 1/37 with a single 0, (European Roulette) where payouts of landing such are 35/1. 

I mean, is knowledge that isn't reliable even knowledge ? 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381598

On 14/04/2016 1:31 PM, Y wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:45:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of
>>>>>> this today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an
>>>>>> electron gun at a double slit, where there is an
>>>>>> electron-sensitive screen behind that records where the
>>>>>> electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the
>>>>>> word "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be
>>>>>> no change in the statements. (Or, for that matter, you can
>>>>>> substitute "proton" or "pion" or "oxygen molecule" or
>>>>>> "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises
>>>>>> is an indicator of the wavelike properties of the
>>>>>> electron.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
>>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
>>>>> hitting the screen.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one
>>>> per hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just
>>> are a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of
>>> wave interference, what we have is a distribution ?
>>
>> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying
>> to construct a different model. If it's different, it must make
>> different predictions about the results of measurements, or it will
>> be mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model
>> at all.
>>
>> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you
>> can show that the current model does not correctly predict the
>> results of some measurements. That would require some actual
>> measurements to be done.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> The predictions aren't exactly reliable in terms of knowledge are
> they ? If probabilistic predictions were knowledge, then casinos all
> around the world would be out of business.

So far as we can tell, the probabilities given by quantum mechanics are 
as much information as exists - the universe itself doesn't know where 
the electron will be detected before it happens.

OK, so you'd prefer to be able to predict exactly where the electron 
will land, but that's a philosophical point of view that the universe is 
not obliged to subscribe to.

In the EPR thought experiment, Einstein et. al. sought to show that 
quantum mechanics was incomplete - that there were properties that 
existed in the world that quantum mechanics left out. It turned out, 
after a considerable time, that their argument was flawed, as Bell 
demonstrated.

Until you can show that there really are omitted properties, such as the 
eventual position of an electron, it's just speculation.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web