Double Slit Experiment Explained

Hi Vkothii,

I'm fine with neutron interferometry, as this has been fully qualified/verified - however, call me a skeptic; but when I searched for corroberative evidence for molecular interferometry, all such links (scrutinized thus far) lead right back to Anton Zeilinger and associates - smells a tad marine creaturesque, no? :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The DSE is evidence of the ether.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Given it can be, and is, explained using an aether-less theory, you are wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This from someone who believes a mass-less particle can exist, much less travel through a void?

And if space is a void, how does it bend?

we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

How does a void have physical qualities?

 

And? You say that as if it's something I want to keep quiet.

Tell me, if you don't consider the photon massless, what is its mass? Oh yeah, you've got no quantitative predictions of any kind. How silly of me.

The definition and description of a curved manifold does not require anything to within the manifold itself.

When do we ever measure an actual void? Every measurement of space involves something in space.

I love how cranks 'quote mine'. Einstein's work is too extensive and too complicated for you to understand yourself so you resort to quoting other people's views on it. You do realise Einstein's been dead for about 50 years and even in his lifetime he was rarely at the forefront of understanding physics. Pretty much everything he did after about 1920, other than a small amount of work with Bose (mostly he just spread the work of Bose to the physics community), was wrong or pointless.

 

I never said it has mass. I say it is a burst traveling through the ether.

Where else has anything been described as a massless particle? No where, that's where. Where do we see bursts? Everywhere.

What is a massless particle but a burst moving through a medium?

Who has proven an ether does not exist?

If you accept an ether, than nonsense like a "massless particle" is no longer required and you can discuss a photon in the photoelectric effect and the DSE as a burst traveling through the ether.

Why have chaos when the ether describes the DSE beautifully?

What is the manifold made of?

If there is something in space, that means it will be displaced by the objects that move through it. The objects will create a displacement wave as they move through the medium of space. It is this displacement wave that goes through both slits in the DSE.

You can't have something in space without it being displaced by the objects in it.

So what is it? Is space a void or does it consist of something?

Don't forget, if you say it is something that means it is displaced by the objects in it.

 

Given the dichotomy either a photon has a mass or it doesn't. Which is it?

You mean outside of particle physics where have we described particles?

It's that a bit like asking "Without using the letters t, a, b, l and e spell 'table'".

Given you have no precise definition of 'burst' and nothing you claim has any evidence to support it over other theories which do have much to support them that statement is nothing but your opinion.

Another pseudo-rhetorical question where you try to put your opinion across as fact.

Every aether model thus far constructed by people has either been proven false, suffers from a host of convoluted caveats or is inferior to the predictive power of relativity. Plus they all presuppose the existence of a material which has never been detected in any way, shape or form.

Besides, no one has proven fairies don't exist but that doesn't mean I believe they do just because some people find it more appealing than believing they don't.

You do realise that aether models don't preclude massless particles? Massless particles can still exist within such theories. Every experiment and natural phenomenon every considered has failed to imply that the photon has mass. The maximum mass the photon can have which would be undetectable to current experiments is 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 1 times that of the electron.

There's no apriori reason to think the photon has a rest mass.

Really? So why can't you provide me with an aether theory which can actually do that? Why can't anyone come up with a viable working aether model of the universe? Every single one of them has been surpassed by modern mainstream physics.

Yes, why force yourself to suppose the existence of a material which is everywhere but is undetectable and which forces you to view the Earth as a preferred reference frame for the entire universe. Hmmm..... let me think....

And your use of the word 'chaos' is nothing but what Wikipedia would deem 'weasal words'. You choose adjectives which don't reflect an impartial view of mainstream physics but your own opinion. Personally I think that quantum electrodynamics is fantastically elegant. But then I, unlike you, have put in the time and effort to understand QED and a great deal of other mainstream physics topic. It's not chaotic or convoluted and it describes the world around us more accurately, more diversely and more practically than any aether based theory.

Get it into your obviously extremely dense skull that when someone says "Theory X describes phenomenon Y" they don't mean "It's a vague qualitative description lacking precision but gives a good intuitive understanding of said phenomenon" but "It quantitatively and accurately describes the dynamics of a system which has been tested using numerous repeated experiments and allows us to predict the behaviour of systems within which this phenomenon is the primary process".

If Newton's work in gravity had been him saying "Things which go up must come down" he'd have become as famous as he did? Or if Einstein said only "You can't go as fast as you like" he'd have ever got out of that patent office? No, of course not. Physics is much more than vague concepts based on poor day to day intuition, as you seem to think it is. It's about accurately understanding phenomena, constructing models and testing them. Again and again. You claim aether theories explain the DSE yet you offer nothing to be tested. You think QM is chaotic but you don't even know it. Are you really so naive, stupid and arrogant to think your grasp (or utter lack of) of quantum mechanics means you can evaluate it? Or that your utterly vague almost random guesses about some phenomena you don't understand properly mean you're doing physics? I bet I've spent more time today doing physics than you've done in the last year. I've certainly done more quantum mechanics (it's 1.40am now and I've been sitting at my desk doing Mathematica coding and scribbling equations since about 4.30pm).

You talk about 'elegance' but you wouldn't know an elegant quantitative theory even if you saw one because you don't seem to understand the need for mathematics within a theory of physics. And I would imagine you don't understand much maths either.

You continue to try to relate concepts outside your day to day experience with things you are familiar with. I could just as easily ask you "What is space made of?". Saying "Space is space, it's a medium." doesn't answer the question in any explanatory way. You are just defining the word to mean what it means. It's circular.

Furious arm waving and wordy attempts to describe something in a way which makes it seem like there's a quantitative model in there but there isn't. You have no model, you have no derivation, you have nothing to even develop. Your approach is entirely analogous to cultures millennia explaining phenomena like lightning as "God is angry" because doing controlled experiments, making precise statements and developing quantitative models which can then be tested was beyond them. Just as it is obviously beyond you.

 

What part of "I never said it has mass" don't you understand?

What part of a burst traveling through the medium of space don't you understand?

If I have a tank of water with rubber sides and I punch one side of the tank and a burst travels through the water and pokes out the other side, do you say the burst has mass?

I really like the fact that you avoid answering questions.

So this is your theory:

A molecule can go through both slits simultaneously in the DSE.
Since space is something that cannot be displaced, space and matter occupy the same points in 3ds simultaneously.

Isn't science supposed to be based on reality?

Here is some more of your theory:

Space is something.
Space can be bent.
Space cannot be displaced.

Explain to me how space has physical properties that allows it to be bent but not displaced.

 

There is no particle interpretation here, because the water is described by a wave equation, not a particle mechanics type equation. There is no poking out the other side.

You are wrong. QED.

 

What do you mean there is no poking out the other side?

Do you understand that your lack of ability to understand and visually comprehend how a burst travels through a tank of water is exactly the problem with QED and the DSE?

You describe the thought experiment of the water tank with rubber sides as a wave equation, therefore there is no poking out of the other side.

I'm not talking about an equation.

I'm talking about what would happen in REALITY if you were to actually punch the side of a rubber tank.

Your post is the perfect example of the disconnect between reality and equations.

Or in other words, You're making my point!

But the biggest problem is what you think is occurring.

You think punching the side of a tank with rubber sides is a "wave equation", and therefore the other side of the tank cannot poke out.

What you think is wrong!

Just because you think a "massless particle" can exist because your equations tell you it does, doesn't make it the best way to describe what a photon is.

 

You are a moron. You quite clearly have never stepped off your high horse for long enough to actually do this experiment because if you had you'd know that when you kick the side of the tank you'd set off waves in all possible directions from the source. not in a particle like motion straight across the tank. An example of what you'd see if you did this in 2 dimensions is given in the picture below, that will be familiar to all 14 year olds who have studied physics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Waves and therefore energy are radiated away in all directions. There is no particle interpretation. Therefore you are wrong QED. For the sake of your ignorance, QED means quod erat demonstrandum and is Latin for "it is proven."

You are still a moron. The equations describe what is observed quantitatively. They are verified by experiment where your claims are not verified at all.

 

If you're going to name call, I prefer you go away, but it seems you have problems reading and visualizing.

It is not a steel drum.

As I have said repeatedly, it is a tank with rubber sides.

Maybe I need to clarify what a "side" is.

Have you ever heard of the concept of a rectangle?

Can you conceptualize it or do I need to draw one for you?

Now lets say that the really long sides are rubber. Let's say the rubber sides are a mile long.

Now lets say the rubber sides are a foot apart.

The short sides are made of steel.

Are you still with me? The long sides, of the rectangle, are made of rubber and the short sides, of the rectangle, are made of steel.

Now you punch the middle of one of the rubber sides so it indents. Do I need to explain to you what an indent is?

The indentation causes a burst of water to travel through to the other side of the tank. This burst will poke out the other side of the tank.

 

No it doesn't. If the tank is open then you will get motion in all directions from the indent. The water level will rise and the motion of the other side will be small. If the tank is sealed and we're assuming the fluid is uncompressable (this is well understood physics by the way, it's modelled very well by the Navier Stokes equation) the other side will bow out along it's entire length with the same displacement as you have caused by pushing your side. Of course, you've never actually done any of this so how would you know? Do you have some sort of god complex?

 

Translation : "I cannot do the equations so I'm trying to tell people who both understand and can do equations, as well as describe in detail qualitatively the system in question, that their way is wrong and my vague grasp of a phenomena I know little about is superior to theirs."

Firstly, I don't think that the side is 'a wave equation'. I would describe the motion of the fluid in the tank via some wave mechanics. Secondly, said wave mechanics takes into account the momentum of the moving fluid and the effect it would have on the sides of the tank.

My dad is a professor of fluid mechanics. He's spent more than 3 decades working with various wave equations of one kind or another, be it through messing around with equations or getting hundreds of thousands of pounds of funding for his department to buy one of only a small number of super computers in the UK with which to do extremely detailed numerical calculations to describe things including the Euro Fighter, the Airbus A380, the supersonic car. Heck, his speciality is shock wave formation and his work in it has applications in modelling nuclear weapon detonations above ground.

So while you're naive/stupid/ignorant/arrogant enough to think that all us mainstream people do is fail to describe 'reality' because we're using equations, companies like Airbus, Boeing, BAE and Lockheed Martin pour billions of dollars/pounds/euros every year into employing people like my father and providing them with the equipment needed to apply their knowledge of 'wave equations' to help build the next generation of fighter jets, large airliners, submarines, missiles, hydroelectric power plants, formula 1 cars. If it involves something big or fast moving through a fluid, someone who knows all about 'wave equations' is being paid to work on it. They don't get paid for pathetic arm waving BS like you keep spouting, they get paid to make precise models. Would you get in a plane designed by someone whose total knowledge of aeronautics was making paper aeroplanes in school 20 years ago? Or would you prefer someone with decades of experience whose spent years modelling air flow, using super computers to model structure stresses on computer models accurate down to the millimetre and used wind tunnels to test physical small scale models?

At least I think. I've yet to see you demonstrate you're able to understand even the simplest explaination. You certainly haven't shown you have any ability in physics.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide an aether model which 'beautifully' describes the DSE experiment. You haven't provided one. And I bet you haven't gone to look in the Feynman lectures textbook because you and I both know you aren't interested in learning, plus you're obviously too stupid to be able to understand it. Disagree? Then prove it.

 

So, if I'm standing on a ladder next to two walls of rubber that have water between them and I punch the rubber as hard as I can to within an inch of the other side, would your Dad say the other rubber side would poke out?

If you fire a carbon-60 molecule at the slits in the DSE, the carbon-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in space (i.e. a wave in the aether). The displacement wave goes through both slits. The carbon-60 molecule goes through one of the slits.

The displacement wave exits the slits and creates interference.

The direction the carbon-60 molecule is traveling as it exits the slits is affected by the interference.

That is how the carbon-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern on the screen.

Your explanation?

Feynman is part of the problem, not the solution.

Yes, I know, he was a genius, but he completely missed what is going on in the DSE.

Ask your Dad, if there is an aether, that can be displaced, does my theory hold water?

 

In my very unscientific experiment, I just filled the sink with water and placed both my hands into the sink. One hand had my palm open to the side. I flicked my finger on my other hand and I felt a burst of water hit my palm. Try it.

 

I don't even have to ask my dad. The basic grasp of fluid mechanics I have (hell, I don't even need to use anything I learnt at university) says 'Yes'.

Is there some reason you aren't looking in a quantum mechanics book and instead demand I tell you what it says? QM explains the double slit experiment, your continued refusal to accept that doesn't mean it doesn't.

Why on Earth should the aether, if it exists, behave like water or air? There's numerous other systems which can flow which don't behave like a typical Navier-Stokes fluid. What is there to your 'theory'? You cannot provide me with anything for me to test. Anything that allows me to model reality. How can you claim to explain what happens in reality when you cannot even model a tank of water, never mind subatomic systems?

Get it through your obviously extremely stupid skull, you have no theory. You just have a pathetic attempt at arm waving. If you knew the first thing about physics you'd realise just how far you are from even being close to comparable to mainstream theories. Really, your delusions are desperately pathetic.

 

How does a carbon-60 molecule go through both slits simultaneously in the DSE?

 

It's a quantum system, and quantum systems behave in the way prescribed by quantum field theory.

 

So your answer is, its magic?

How about explaining the details about how a molecule can be in two places at the same time.