Double Slit Experiment

Here is a diagram of the experiment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I always assumed that the above diagrams were self-explanatory. Please accept my apology.

But before you can begin to understand the diagrams, you must first watch and listen to the Richard Feynman lectures and Richard Feynman - Science Videos.

I also like Dr Quantum.

Now you should have a good understanding of the double slit experiment.

You also need to know about Quantum Tunneling.

And finally Schrodinger's Cat.

What happens if you add these three scientific facts together, in one experiment.

Schrodinger's Cat, Quantum Tunneling and the double slit experiment.

From Black Holes to Electrons, all Quantum Tunneling through to cause interference.

Now instead of one cat, put millions of cats in the box (the source).

Are all the "cats" still inside the box, or have some gone on a random "walk about"?

I always get the same interference pattern, from electrons to cats to black holes.

We can now, go even deeper than the original Richard Feynman double slit experiment and remove the "source" completely, without changing the experiment..

So what is, "The fundamental structure of space and time?"

"That's the way nature works, ... If you don't like it? Go somewhere else. To another universe...."

Any questions?

Alpha, Omega - Be light Made

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pseudoscience (wiki).

In this forum, does that mean no one discusses, "the big bang theory", "inflationary theory", "p-brane theories", "time travel", "worm holes theory", "multi-universe theories", "mini quantum black hole theory", "the 'god' particle theory"?

( This is my once and only time I will ever mention or discuss these theories. - What's the point of advertising or talking about something you don't believe in.)

Are these left outside, to the science fiction writer's? - No science, just lots of free publicity and book sales.

There is so much science fiction, which is now called science it is difficult to know who or what to believe.

Why did I not come here sooner, peace at last. - No more BS.

In eight years, no one has called my experiment "pseudo", I suppose it depends on how deep you want to go. The dead cats, were perhaps a little to much.

Or was it the reference to "The fundamental structure of space and time", that is just one of the predictions of the experiment.

Welcome to my world.

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute.

"That's the way nature works, ... If you don't like it? Go somewhere else. To another universe...."

Any questions?

Alpha, Omega - Be light Made

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The discussion in this forum is less moderated than in Physics and Math. Typically, I place threads in Pseudoscience if I feel that they're challenging the orthodoxy, so to speak. In other words, I find it highly doubtful that anyone is going to overturn 100 years of good work by smart people on a science discussion forum.

You may be right, but based on my judgement of the content, and the way that you've chosen your words (``be light made''?), I don't think your threads should be in Physics and Maths. You are, of course, free to take your case to Stryder, Plazma or JamesR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dear BenTheMan,

I am for ever apologizing, I ll never make a politician. - There goes my funding.

First of all there is no such thing as a negative result, in science, when ever someone studies something, by definition, our knowledge has increased.

But these are the symptoms of the problem, not the solution, and definitely not the cause or original source. These are problems looking outwards, where as I am looking for solutions inwardly.

The best recent example I can think of, is Ed Witten and M Theory.

If I "invented" a new and better definition or concept of "time", for example, would clocks stop ticking!

 

Unfinished revolution
C . ROVELLI
One hundred and forty-four years elapsed between the publication of Copernicus’s
De Revolutionibus, which opened the great scientific revolution of the seventeenth
century, and the publication of Newton’s Principia, the final synthesis that brought
that revolution to a spectacularly successful end. During those 144 years, the basic
grammar for understanding the physical world changed and the old picture of
reality was reshaped in depth.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, General Relativity (GR) and Quantum
Mechanics (QM) once again began reshaping our basic understanding of space and
time and, respectively, matter, energy and causality – arguably to a no lesser extent.
But we have not been able to combine these new insights into a novel coherent
synthesis, yet. The twentieth-century scientific revolution opened by GR and QM
is therefore still wide open. We are in the middle of an unfinished scientific revolution.
Quantum Gravity is the tentative name we give to the “synthesis to be
found”.
In fact, our present understanding of the physical world at the fundamental level
is in a state of great confusion. The present knowledge of the elementary dynamical
laws of physics is given by the application of QM to fields, namely Quantum
Field Theory (QFT), by the particle-physics Standard Model (SM), and by GR.
This set of fundamental theories has obtained an empirical success nearly unique
in the history of science: so far there isn’t any clear evidence of observed phenomena
that clearly escape or contradict this set of theories – or a minor modification of
the same, such as a neutrino mass or a cosmological constant.1 But, the theories in
this set are based on badly self-contradictory assumptions. In GR the gravitational
field is assumed to be a classical deterministic dynamical field, identified with the
(pseudo) Riemannian metric of spacetime: but with QM we have understood that
all dynamical fields have quantum properties. The other way around, conventional
1 Dark matter (not dark energy) might perhaps be contrary evidence.
Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Toward a New Understanding of Space, Time and Matter, ed. Daniele Oriti.
Published by Cambridge University Press. c Cambridge University Press 2009.
4 C. Rovelli
QFT relies heavily on global Poincaré invariance and on the existence of a
non-dynamical background spacetime metric: but with GR we have understood
that there is no such non-dynamical background spacetime metric in nature.
In spite of their empirical success, GR and QM offer a schizophrenic and confused
understanding of the physical world. The conceptual foundations of classical
GR are contradicted by QM and the conceptual foundation of conventional QFT
are contradicted by GR. Fundamental physics is today in a peculiar phase of deep
conceptual confusion.
Some deny that such a major internal contradiction in our picture of nature exists.
On the one hand, some refuse to take QM seriously. They insist that QM makes no
sense, after all, and therefore the fundamental world must be essentially classical.
This doesn’t put us in a better shape, as far as our understanding of the world is
concerned.
Others, on the other hand, and in particular some hard-core particle physicists, do
not accept the lesson of GR. They read GR as a field theory that can be consistently
formulated in full on a fixed metric background, and treated within conventional
QFT methods. They motivate this refusal by insisting than GR’s insight should not
be taken too seriously, because GR is just a low-energy limit of a more fundamental
theory. In doing so, they confuse the details of the Einstein’s equations (which
might well be modified at high energy), with the new understanding of space and
time brought by GR. This is coded in the background independence of the fundamental
theory and expresses Einstein’s discovery that spacetime is not a fixed background,
as was assumed in special relativistic physics, but rather a dynamical field.
Nowadays this fact is finally being recognized even by those who have long
refused to admit that GR forces a revolution in the way to think about space and
time, such as some of the leading voices in string theory. In a recent interview
[1], for instance, Nobel laureate David Gross says: “ [...] this revolution will likely
change the way we think about space and time, maybe even eliminate them completely
as a basis for our description of reality”. This is of course something that
has been known since the 1930s [2] by anybody who has taken seriously the problem
of the implications of GR and QM. The problem of the conceptual novelty of
GR, which the string approach has tried to throw out of the door, comes back by
the window.
These and others remind me of Tycho Brahe, who tried hard to conciliate Copernicus’s
advances with the “irrefutable evidence” that the Earth is immovable at the
center of the universe. To let the background spacetime go is perhaps as difficult
as letting go the unmovable background Earth. The world may not be the way it
appears in the tiny garden of our daily experience.
Today, many scientists do not hesitate to take seriously speculations such as
extra dimensions, new symmetries or multiple universes, for which there isn’t a
Unfinished revolution 5
wit of empirical evidence; but refuse to take seriously the conceptual implications
of the physics of the twentieth century with the enormous body of empirical evidence
supporting them. Extra dimensions, new symmetries, multiple universes and
the like, still make perfectly sense in a pre-GR, pre-QM, Newtonian world,
while to take GR and QM seriously together requires a genuine reshaping of our
world view.
After a century of empirical successes that have equals only in Newton’s and
Maxwell’s theories, it is time to take seriously GR and QM, with their full conceptual
implications; to find a way of thinking the world in which what we have
learned with QM and what we have learned with GR make sense together – finally
bringing the twentieth-century scientific revolution to its end. This is the problem
of Quantum Gravity.
1.1 Quantum spacetime
Roughly speaking, we learn from GR that spacetime is a dynamical field and we
learn from QM that all dynamical field are quantized. A quantum field has a granular
structure, and a probabilistic dynamics, that allows quantum superposition of
different states. Therefore at small scales we might expect a “quantum spacetime”
formed by “quanta of space” evolving probabilistically, and allowing “quantum
superposition of spaces”. The problem of Quantum Gravity is to give a precise
mathematical and physical meaning to this vague notion of “quantum spacetime”.
Some general indications about the nature of quantum spacetime, and on
the problems this notion raises, can be obtained from elementary considerations.
The size of quantum mechanical effects is determined by Planck’s constant . The
strength of the gravitational force is determined by Newton’s constant G, and the
relativistic domain is determined by the speed of light c. By combining these three
fundamental constants we obtain the Planck length lP =

G/c3 ∼ 10−33 cm.
Quantum-gravitational effects are likely to be negligible at distances much larger
than lP, because at these scales we can neglect quantities of the order of G,  or 1/c.
Therefore we expect the classical GR description of spacetime as a pseudo-
Riemannian space to hold at scales larger than lP, but to break down approaching
this scale, where the full structure of quantum spacetime becomes relevant. Quantum
Gravity is therefore the study of the structure of spacetime at the Planck
scale.
1.1.1 Space
Many simple arguments indicate that lP may play the role of a minimal length, in
the same sense in which c is the maximal velocity and  the minimal exchanged
action.
6 C. Rovelli
For instance, the Heisenberg principle requires that the position of an object of
mass m can be determined only with uncertainty x satisfying mvx > , where v
is the uncertainty in the velocity; special relativity requires v < c; and according
to GR there is a limit to the amount of mass we can concentrate in a region of size
x, given by x > Gm/c2, after which the region itself collapses into a black hole,
subtracting itself from our observation. Combining these inequalities we obtain
x > lP. That is, gravity, relativity and quantum theory, taken together, appear to
prevent position from being determined more precisely than the Planck scale.
A number of considerations of this kind have suggested that space might not be
infinitely divisible. It may have a quantum granularity at the Planck scale, analogous
to the granularity of the energy in a quantum oscillator. This granularity of
space is fully realized in certain Quantum Gravity theories, such as loop Quantum
Gravity, and there are hints of it also in string theory. Since this is a quantum
granularity, it escapes the traditional objections to the atomic nature of space.
1.1.2 Time
Time is affected even more radically by the quantization of gravity. In conventional
QM, time is treated as an external parameter and transition probabilities change
in time. In GR there is no external time parameter. Coordinate time is a gauge
variable which is not observable, and the physical variable measured by a clock is
a nontrivial function of the gravitational field. Fundamental equations of Quantum
Gravity might therefore not be written as evolution equations in an observable time
variable. And in fact, in the quantum-gravity equation par excellence, the Wheeler–
deWitt equation, there is no time variable t at all.
Much has been written on the fact that the equations of nonperturbative Quantum
Gravity do not contain the time variable t. This presentation of the “problem of
time in Quantum Gravity”, however, is a bit misleading, since it mixes a problem
of classical GR with a specific Quantum Gravity issue. Indeed, classical GR as
well can be entirely formulated in the Hamilton–Jacobi formalism, where no time
variable appears either.
In classical GR, indeed, the notion of time differs strongly from the one used in
the special-relativistic context. Before special relativity, one assumed that there is
a universal physical variable t, measured by clocks, such that all physical phenomena
can be described in terms of evolution equations in the independent variable t.
In special relativity, this notion of time is weakened. Clocks do not measure a universal
time variable, but only the proper time elapsed along inertial trajectories. If
we fix a Lorentz frame, nevertheless, we can still describe all physical phenomena
in terms of evolution equations in the independent variable x0, even though this
description hides the covariance of the system.
Unfinished revolution 7
In general relativity, when we describe the dynamics of the gravitational field
(not to be confused with the dynamics of matter in a given gravitational field),
there is no external time variable that can play the role of observable independent
evolution variable. The field equations are written in terms of an evolution parameter,
which is the time coordinate x0; but this coordinate does not correspond to
anything directly observable. The proper time τ along spacetime trajectories cannot
be used as an independent variable either, as τ is a complicated non-local
function of the gravitational field itself. Therefore, properly speaking, GR does
not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable.
This does not mean that GR lacks predictivity. Simply put, what GR predicts
are relations between (partial) observables, which in general cannot be represented
as the evolution of dependent variables on a preferred independent time
variable.
This weakening of the notion of time in classical GR is rarely emphasized: after
all, in classical GR we may disregard the full dynamical structure of the theory and
consider only individual solutions of its equations of motion. A single solution of
the GR equations of motion determines “a spacetime”, where a notion of proper
time is associated to each timelike worldline.
But in the quantum context a single solution of the dynamical equation is like a
single “trajectory” of a quantum particle: in quantum theory there are no physical
individual trajectories: there are only transition probabilities between observable
eigenvalues. Therefore in Quantum Gravity it is likely to be impossible to describe
the world in terms of a spacetime, in the same sense in which the motion of a
quantum electron cannot be described in terms of a single trajectory.
To make sense of the world at the Planck scale, and to find a consistent conceptual
framework for GR and QM, we might have to give up the notion of time
altogether, and learn ways to describe the world in atemporal terms. Time might be
a useful concept only within an approximate description of the physical reality.
1.1.3 Conceptual issues
The key difficulty of Quantum Gravity may therefore be to find a way to understand
the physical world in the absence of the familiar stage of space and time. What
might be needed is to free ourselves from the prejudices associated with the habit
of thinking of the world as “inhabiting space” and “evolving in time”.
Technically, this means that the quantum states of the gravitational field cannot
be interpreted like the n-particle states of conventional QFT as living on a given
spacetime. Rather, these quantum states must themselves determine and define a
spacetime – in the manner in which the classical solutions of GR do.
8 C. Rovelli
Conceptually, the key question is whether or not it is logically possible to understand
the world in the absence of fundamental notions of time and time evolution,
and whether or not this is consistent with our experience of the world.
The difficulties of Quantum Gravity are indeed largely conceptual. Progress in
Quantum Gravity cannot be just technical. The search for a quantum theory of gravity
raises once more old questions such as: What is space? What is time? What is
the meaning of “moving”? Is motion to be defined with respect to objects or with
respect to space? And also: What is causality? What is the role of the observer
in physics? Questions of this kind have played a central role in periods of major
advances in physics. For instance, they played a central role for Einstein, Heisenberg,
and Bohr; but also for Descartes, Galileo, Newton and their contemporaries,
as well as for Faraday and Maxwell.
Today some physicists view this manner of posing problems as “too philosophical”.
Many physicists of the second half of the twentieth century, indeed, have
viewed questions of this nature as irrelevant. This view was appropriate for the
problems they were facing. When the basics are clear and the issue is problemsolving
within a given conceptual scheme, there is no reason to worry about
foundations: a pragmatic approach is the most effective one. Today the kind of
difficulties that fundamental physics faces has changed. To understand quantum
spacetime, physics has to return, once more, to those foundational questions.

 

I would like to thank alephnull, for his link to Stanford University.

And in particular to Leonard Susskind.

Have you watched his first lecture on Special Relativity?

Einstein said it best, "If anyone understood me (new the truth), they would not like me."

I know the feeling. I have been trying to say it for years.

If you don't believe me, listen to Prof. Susskind, you get the same diagrams and conclusions.

Eulers formula,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now apply special and general relativity and you get,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Light in, Light out.

Any more questions?

 

A few stick figure scientists would most definitely add clarity to your illustrations. Please consider adding them.

 

Terry, isn't your equation wrong, you know, the one stated as \(E^2=(M^2c^4)^2+(-M^2c^4)\). A negative energy plus a positive energy mathematically equals zero??

\(Mc^2 +(-Mc^2)=0\)

Not to mention none of you work above takes anyone through any literature which would shed light on what you are trying to propose.

 

Along with pretty much everything else he says.

No, he doesn't.

Terry hasn't read 'the literature', he thinks watching a video on YouTube makes you knowledgeable in quantum field theory and relativity.

 

You know, I could have swore one time he admitted to yourself of being a physicist.

What a joke.

 

Terry claims to have done physics, including starting a PhD in fluid mechanics. He refers to the most senior scientist in the UK, the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, as his 'mentor' because Terry read a pop science book Sir Martin wrote years ago. Terry thinks '3' was the solution to the problem he supposedly had for his PhD project, as if that's enough to solve a PhD level problem. Terry believes that because he's been in the same room as famous knowledgeable competent physicists then his ability is somehow elevated. He refers to he's 'welcome' at any university in the UK but this is his way of saying he's not banned from any campus, just like 99.99999% of the general public, as if being able to walk into a university building somehow means he's able to do or understand the work done by the people in that building.

If Terry really did do physics at degree level he's forgotten what physics really is. He said in another thread that he doesn't need to learn the specifics of things like general relativity as computers can solve it all anyway. Anyone who understands what physics is knows its not just "Here is an equation, solve it" but "What equations describe this phenomenon?". Despite Terry's claims to be taking a 'real world' view of physics he wouldn't know real physics if it set fire to his trousers.

 

Plus to truly learn physics and understand it, you have to practice it by applying the principles to solve thousands of problems. You'll never learn the true meaning behind physical concepts unless you play with the math, go through the deductions, explore the little details, and learn to describe and model realistic systems. Experience doing actual experiments in real labs with proper equipment also helps a great deal, otherwise your learning will be disconnected from reality.

 

Yes, i agree Bork.

 

Yeah, its worrying how often I've seen a student be able to solve a problem when told the method to use yet when its up to them to realise "Oh this is just a particular case of that" or "This is that reworded" they fall flat on their face. Of course it happens to us all, experience is something you can't teach, but when a student is walked through something for the 4th time and still doesn't get how parts a, b and c connect to part d of a question its infuriating.

I've been guilty of it too, thinking to myself "I've read that, I therefore understand it". Trying to do the exercises at the end of a chapter in a book is a step too often skipped.

Terry's position is worse than that, because he thinks watching the Feynman lectures imparts knowledge that say not watching but reading the books would not impart. Watching a video takes no effort at all, I can literally do it asleep. Reading a book at least takes concentration.

 

Watching vids is nothing, they're only good for illustrating things you already learn about in the more traditional way. How is someone supposed to squash years of math training into a few hours of video, anyhow? Even with the actual Feynman Lectures books, which I believe cover a 2 year course, I found the material lacking, and answers to detailed questions had to be found in other, more focussed resources.

Yeah, it seems to me if Terry thinks he's communicating a brilliant new insight by taping some pages together and spamming the thread with (conceptually) disconnected diagrams, then his understanding of the building blocks in science must be awful. I think I know what he needs to fix the problem though, I think his diagrams could use a little more cowbell.

 

You get no argument from me, it doesn't take a genius to know practice makes perfect. Especially when it comes to mathematics, practicing and going through all the examples is the only way to learn.

But you seem to be missing the most important fact about science, especially mathematics and physics, which is to use what you have learned to apply it to the unknown and make predictions.

I remember studying the Maxwell Equations and realizing the true beauty and power of mathematics.

Based purely on Maxwell "mathematical equations", it is possible to make several predictions about electricity and magnetism, for example that somewhere in the world, even if I had never seen one, a piece of metal would should the properties of magnetism, ie they would be magnets.

Using only mathematics to predicting the physical properties of magnets, that beauty, that's the power of mathematics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another and very important point you are also missing, we all have different ways of learning.

As it happens I prefer diagrams and listening to someone, rather than reading a book, which is why when I watched and listen to the Richard Feynman lectures, most of what I read in books all started to make sense.

 

Terry, read my avatars message, shut your hole you sanctimonious little worm.

I hate people proclaiming understanding of a physical theory which cannot at present be toppled.



You know Terry, I have a lot of respect for psuedoscience, for in rare cases they can state trivial truths, which can be at a later date validated - mind you - with the array of cranks persistant on the net, this ratio is small compared to possibly those maveriks we meet here, hence not you.

Move on, or learn something before declaring anything on it. Just some advice.

 

What can I say about Alpha(Nob), without getting banned......

Everything he writes, he writes very carefully, so that it contains 95% of polite and factual information and 5% of crass lies and insinuations and false information.

Yes, as per my CV, I had a degree in Maths and Physics.

Yes I studied for a PhD, in Computational Fluid Dynamics, working for British Aerospace in collaboration with Bristol University, to design the engine configuration and layout of HOTOL, to make sure and avoid shock waves from damaging the rocket itself.

What amazes me, is that I calculated and solved the problem in six months, answer 3. - Which Alpha(Nob) disputes.

Yet, neither he or his father or his 25 post docs, after nearly 5 years since we have been having this argument, has still to been able to prove or deny my claim.

It is time he shut or prove me wrong, by showing me his or his fathers answer.

I will stake my reputation that the answer is 3. Yet Alpha(Nob) and all his 'merry men' cannot even solve the problem I solved over 20 years ago.

The most senior scientist in the UK, the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees.

And I chose, him as my mentor.....

In 1987, out of all the mathematicians and Physicists in the world, just by 'chance', I happened to picked and read everything Martin Rees wrote.

There was no chance involved.

It is only a reflection of my dedicated hard work and in depth studying of the subject, that I came to choose Martin Rees as my mentor. I respected the man and I respected the work which he did involving Quasars.

I am not surprised he became the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, he gets my vote.

Ironically, when I last posted my work on Quasars, Alpha(Nob) attacked and criticized the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees own work.

And for the record, I would not call the IAU, as a 'popular science book'.

Light in, Light out.

 

""Forum Mafia's" always hunt in packs.

Please accept my apology, but from previous experience dealing with "Alpha(nob)" and his wing man rpenner, they are know to attack in groups.

He gets all his forum mafia friends to create new accounts and together they attack anyone they don't like repeatedly, with lies and personal attacks.

So if you don't mind if I natural assume your one of them.

If you don't like what I have to say, everyone is entitled to their own option.

If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it, go somewhere else.

With regards to 'psuedoscience', it was bentheman who moved this thread into this forum, I think he was doing it for my benefit, but I don't understand.

I discussed performing this experiment, at CERN years ago, but what's the point I know it works.

It can't be toppled because it correct, that's the whole point.

For over 40 years people have tried to solve the Double Slit Experiment, but all they have done is widen the discussion, using different number of slits etc., but none has ever gone deeper, until now.

That's why I said I solved it, for the first time in 40 years, I did something which was very simple but mind blowing.

I realized if you remove the 'source', place it behind a quantum barrier, you don't change the experiment.

Everything from black holes to electrons, quantum tunnels through to cause and interference pattern.

Why, simple everything we see in the world, at its heart is a wave.

That's the true beauty of this experiment, it is so simple and so easy to understand and see.

Why did no one think of it sooner. - It has taken me 20 years to find a solution which works.

Now there is no argument or disagreement, everything we understand and know about the universe is correct and here is a Physics diagram to prove it.

It is so simple and beautiful, people don't fully appreciate the true significance.

It is so obvious, yet so true.

Light in, Light out.

 

Why do you do that? Always end a post in the estranged idiom ''light in, light out.''

It's such a bizarre thing to do. Is there any merit of understanding when you use it?