Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ethernos D Grace, Jan 31, 2022.
This is the answer to your question.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I dont understand why you dont understand these objects are considered as the same and why you dont distinguish the fact that you could change the screen.
Not sure what you are saying so let me restate the issue.
Actually Dave said quite nicely so I will just quote him:
You can dim an electron emitter so much that you can effectively have it shooting a particle out once every second. Each particle will make a flash where it hits the detector. After a few hundred particles, you will see the cumulative effect that they tend to hit more frequently in certain bands and less frequently in other bands, ultimately building up to form the interference pattern we know and love. Changing the screen every time will make no difference.
Changing the screen after each shot and then combining them after will give an interference pattern. How could changing the screen have any effect at all.
Just as the lab table is not a variable in the experiment, neither is the screen.
You have to be carefull as soon as you are doing some experiment, not to interfer with the result.
This is most ever important when you are doing a quantic mecanic experience (because of the "feedback effect" that can occur)
Some scientists think there is a loop within the expeerience and the observer.
It is possible that the screen (any type of screen), as part of the experience, could have an effect on the result.
Changing the screen.... in this case, doeent only consist on taking the next screen you have handy.
Changing the screen consist in "breaking" the link with the next screen.
You need to choose a new screen on the basis of quantic random to be sure to have changed it.
You don't need to explain your idea again. Your ideas are simplistic enough that they can be captured in one go.
It doesn't change the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about. To-wit:
Likewise, it is "possible" that the sneakers of the observer could have an effect on the result. After all, in your own words: "...a loop within the experience and the observer."
No. This is nonsense.
That's why you need to defer to people who know what they're talking about.
No scientific argument here.
You only not know that there has been a lot of debate within the quantum mecanic specialists concerning "the loop", information could take.
This is not nonsense.
It is based on real physic.
The observer and the observed are linked together.
If you want to break the link, for sure, you have to use an "external" decision method.
Per example a quantum random generator : You decide wich screen between some you will use, depending on the external (real) random result.
You mean you ?
Be more explicit.
'observer' in QM terms is not a person; it is any external system that interacts with the test system. That system need be no more than a collection of particles that are not entangled with the test system.
This is what QM specialists are saying, despite your interpretation. Pop-sci media is still promoting the antiquated, archaic notion that a living observer is required for QM interactions.
Look, you are reading your sources in a vacuum of learning. Instead of making assertions here, you will do better to ask if you ideas are right, and others can then correct your misunderstandings.
On what is based your interpretation that i dont know this (very basic) fact ?
If you have something interesting to say relativ to what i have writen, just do it, do not use "what you think what i am supposed to know" as an argument (because it is not a scientific argument).
You could spare yourself this useless writing.
On the contrary, it is trying to teach you something important to a proper understanding of QM.
Look, if you really think changing the screen between each detection could affect the outcome, do you suppose an experiment exploring this would not have been reported by now? Do you think you have some unique insight that has escaped the physics community? Or do you think there is some conspiracy to avoid reporting experiments that upset the model?
Either is quite absurd.
There is no reason, in QM, to think changing the screen has any more effect than replacing a wire in one of the circuits. If you think differently, it is up to YOU to make the case, in terms of QM theory, as to why it might do so. Simply asserting that it should be done won’t do.
Can you tell we what he has teached me, please ?
So everytime someone propose a new experiment you will tell him this is absurdity because someone has probably already done it ?
So everytime someone propose a new insight you will tell him this is absurdity because someone has probably already tougth it ?
What do you think the goal would be ?
You have strange reasoning...
It is absurd to say it is absurd without any reasoning.
It is up to you to proove me that :
1. The experince have already be done (on my side i can not proove that something doesent exists, i am a scientist after all).
2. The experience will surely not add any knowledge.
"...because it is not a scientific argument...
Nothing you have written in this thread is a scientific argument. The responses you are getting are tailored to your grasp of the subject matter.
Don't be silly. We know perfectly well that you are nothing of the sort.
No. You need to make a case to us as to why changing the screen might make a difference. For it to do so, you will need to argue that detection of one spot somehow influences the position of the next. Nothing in QM says this would happen: on the contrary, the position of each detection is expected to be independent of the preceding ones.
And you are not a scientist, that is plain to everyone here.
You dont even understand the words i am using...
What do you dont understant when i say this :
I am not one of those 21 centuries scientist (mathematic parrot guy).
I am some crow predator
The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is a "link".
"quantic random" is not a thing.
I don't know what you've been reading, but you need to read it more carefully.
Exact. You're not a scientist. Don't try to act like one.
Crows like shiny baubles and yelling at other crows. They don't know science, and they don't make up stuff on science forums.
I only suggest an experiment.
You assured me that this experience is senseless.
You dident gave any clue of it.
There are many definitions regarding the term "scientist".
I already told you i am not a mathematician.
So what have i not told you ... ?
That i have around 140 IQ ?
Your assuming (relying on nothing, probably like all what you think off) permit me to say that you really dont know "crows" and that you dont know how crows could evolve.
Separate names with a comma.