Quantum Quackery Cracked? - Double Slit Experiment

You just said a very bad word Bravowon.
Two actually, beginning with L then an A.
Saying those words on sciforums is like finding a wasp's nest and jabbing a big pointy stick through it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL, well the thread has been moved to pseudoscience...... I made the mistake of thinking I had a free reign.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've done some digging in the archives and can see that this is already a thrashed horse. Thanks for the heads up CK.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good Man!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wonder what would happen if you do the double slit experiment 200 million lys away from the light source.

Reason:
When dealing with the light effect model you can see it fails miserably once you extend the distances beyond Earth/solar system like.
Outcome:
Very suggestive that our theories on light/EMR are incredibly flawed...

[hee hee Quantum Quackery Cracked! ha love it! Post #9999 too..uhm]

 

The double slit experiment shows that any small particle exists in multiple places at the same time (like a wave spreading outward). Each instance of the particle within the wave represents a probability. Once the wave interacts with something that requires a definitive location, the wave collapses and the particle remaining is the one with the highest probability.

Hope that helps

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

You don't do any research before posting. do you?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3923

 

damn I shall have to use my 10,000 post on such a trite issue.
Where does gravitational lensing get referred to in my post?
I make no mention of gravitational lensing.
What are you trying to say?

 

Hey Hi CC...
care to elaborate a little on the solution to the double slit [wave/particle duality] issue you have presented...

sounds intriguing...

 

Not sure what to elaborate on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Was something unclear?

 

Do you believe the issue has been resolved?

 

I thought it had a better ring to it than "Read Pseudoscience Here".
Got to pull the punters you know.

 

Bravo- in your defense, this is a forum full of scientific minds who can't wait to pull apart your independant ideas to flaunt their scientific knowledge. Since you are not a scientist, this thread ends up in pseusoscience.

But don't worry- high science is just as lost as us laymen are: when an even higher science comes along, all the scientists nod their heads and admit they were all ignorant all along. Einstein had such a hard time convincing people that E=MC2 that it took decades for a concensus to form.

In this place, don't assume. Wiki it first. Then submit posts humbly with an open mind. Wiki kills 95% of all free thoughts with plain words to describe science.

I hope you stick around and continue to contribute. Personally I stay away from the physics forum as much as possible, I stick to my strengths which happen to be free thoughts, opinion, religion and other quackeries which weigh in on the other 90% of the posts in this forum-

Good luck.

 

You posted

The paper linked to shows that one can get an interference pattern when the light source is at extragalactic distances. And that having 'which path' information destroys the pattern.

 

and good on ya for havin' a go...

 

The problem as I see it is that if we subscribe to a photon as having dimensions [ width, length etc] we can note that a finite number of photons must be emmitted from a star in every wave at t=0.
This means that as the wave expands the distance between these photons along the circumference of the wave gets larger so that by the time the wave has propagated 200 million Lys a photon particle would actually be damn hard to find along the wave front as the distance of separation would be huge.

Of course experience will tell us that no matter where we place our receptor if the light is upon it a theoretical photon particle must be present, and this contradicts the use of finite dimensions for our photon particle, unless of course you want to allow it to change it's dimensions as per distance from source. [ as you will find that any where along the wave front light will be present on our receptor]

And if the particle has NO dimension and is in fact zero dimensional then for all intents and purposes it could be considered as an imaginary artifact of a wave which of course the double slit experiment refutes.

So which is it particle or wave? or dare I suggest the outrageous and put forward that it could be neither!

 

What specifically is *the issue*?

 

What issue do you think it is? [ given the title of this thread ]

 

It's a pretty big universe.....

 

Odd how telescopes work then, isn't it? The fact that they do seems to invalidate your supposition.