exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What “link”? According to QM there is no link between detection of one particle and the next.
Double slit experiment revision
- Thread starter Ethernos D Grace
- Start date
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
Are you totaly nuts ?
dicart said:
We dont know, you dont know, he dont know, she dont know, it dont know...
It is too much to underdstand ?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
But we DO know. QM says there is no “link” between one detection and the next, and we know QM works, i.e. correctly predicts what we should observe, every time it has been put to the test.
So YOU need to explain on what grounds you think, contrary to QM, there is a link between one detection and the next, such that changing screens each time would break this “link” and give different results. So far you have not been able to offer one word of a rationale for this supposition.
You are like some free energy crank, demanding that we build some contraption he claims breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Well sorry but no. These laws are known to work. So the onus is on the person who claims otherwise to make his case, not for science to waste time on wild goose chases.
Last edited:
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
Again : Whats the use to only do experiments you are totaly sure of ?
You can not learn anything if you think like this (you already know all... ???)
Let do as before when physicists did real experimenting : Try something foolish (who know who is the real fool here ?) sometime (based on some foolish or wrong thinking...why not).
You can not learn anything if you think like this (you already know all... ???)
Let do as before when physicists did real experimenting : Try something foolish (who know who is the real fool here ?) sometime (based on some foolish or wrong thinking...why not).
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Exactly.
Just as we need to try the experiment with different screens, so we need to try it while the scientists are wearing bowties.
And when it's raining.
And when Jupiter aligns with Mars.
I mean, we should certainly be spending our money on doing foolish experiments.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Bingo! It’s a waste of time. Which is why we don’t do them.
Instead we do experiments for which we do NOT know the outcome.
But, as I have told you before several times now, if you think there is a reason why changing the screen might make a difference, explain your reason and convince us it is worthwhile to do the experiment. If you can’t come up with a reason, well, we all have better things to do with our time.
Last edited:
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
You have better things to do with your time.... (and our money)
You mean your method actualy permit science to add new knowledge since 100 years ?
What a joke !
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
For the third time, what reason do you have to think changing the screen between detection events might alter the outcome? Because QM says it won’t.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Fine, so you have no idea, you’ve just pulled it out of your arse. That’s even more stupid than a free energy crank.
If you had a better understanding of physics you would know that you don't need to test it.
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
If you had better understanding of SCIENCE (so physics) you would know that NOTHING is TABOO.
When you consider something as taboo... you are dealing with religious or mysticical thougth.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Apparently, you and I are guilty of mysticical thougth. Oo-er, that sounds bad.
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
Apparently, you and I are guilty of mysticical thougth. Oo-er, that sounds bad.
We dont have the same goal.
I want the progress of science.
You want the confirmation of your ego.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego#EgoWikipedia said:Ego
The ego (Latin for "I",[20] German: Ich)[21] acts according to the reality principle; i.e., it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that, in the long term, bring benefit, rather than grief.[22] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the (unconscious) commands of the id with its own preconscious rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess...to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[23] The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings, but instead to purchase those items.[24]
The ego is the organized part of the personality structure that includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions. Conscious awareness resides in the ego, although not all of the operations of the ego are conscious. Originally, Freud used the word ego to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory.[25] The ego separates out what is real. It helps us to organize our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us.[25] "The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world. ...The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions...in its relation to the id it is like a tug of war, which the ego has to hold in check the id to not let it loose; with the difference, that the teams fought against one other in equality, while the ego was against the much stronger 'id'."[26] Still worse, "it serves three severe masters...the external world, the super-ego and the id."[23] Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives and reality while satisfying the id and super-ego. Its main concern is with the individual's safety and allows some of the id's desires to be expressed, but only when consequences of these actions are marginal. "Thus the ego, driven by the id, confined by the super-ego, repulsed by reality, struggles...[in] bringing about harmony among the forces and influences working in and upon it," and readily "breaks out in anxiety—realistic anxiety regarding the external world, moral anxiety regarding the super-ego, and neurotic anxiety regarding the strength of the passions in the id."[27] It has to do its best to suit all three, thus is constantly feeling hemmed by the danger of causing discontent on two other sides. It is said, however, that the ego seems to be more loyal to the id, preferring to gloss over the finer details of reality to minimize conflicts while pretending to have a regard for reality. But the super-ego is constantly watching every one of the ego's moves and punishes it with feelings of guilt, anxiety, and inferiority.
To overcome this the ego employs defense mechanisms. The defense mechanisms are not done so directly or consciously. They lessen the tension by covering up our impulses that are threatening.[28] Ego defense mechanisms are often used by the ego when id behavior conflicts with reality and either society's morals, norms, and taboos or the individual's expectations as a result of the internalization of these morals, norms, and their taboos.
Denial, displacement, intellectualisation, fantasy, compensation, projection, rationalization, reaction formation, regression, repression, and sublimation were the defense mechanisms Freud identified. However, his daughter Anna Freud clarified and identified the concepts of undoing, suppression, dissociation, idealization, identification, introjection, inversion, somatisation, splitting, and substitution.
"The ego is not sharply separated from the id; its lower portion merges into it.... But the repressed merges into the id as well, and is merely a part of it. The repressed is only cut off sharply from the ego by the resistances of repression; it can communicate with the ego through the id." (Sigmund Freud, 1923)
In a diagram of the Structural and Topographical Models of Mind, the ego is depicted to be half in the consciousness, while a quarter is in the preconscious and the other quarter lies in the unconscious.
In modern English, ego has many meanings. It could mean one's self-esteem; an inflated sense of self-worth; the conscious-thinking self;[29] or in philosophical terms, one's self. Ego development is known as the development of multiple processes, cognitive function, defenses, and interpersonal skills or to early adolescence when ego processes are emerged.[22]
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And yet, you reject the idea of testing with the scientists wearing bowties, and testing when Dems versus Reps are in power.
Hear me out.
Somewhere between the obvious and the preposterous, you, Dicart have drawn a line that says "this could affect the experiment but that could not."
The question I put to you is: why do you think where you draw your line is a better then where people who have spent their careers in this field draw their line? Do you think they do so arbitrarily? Do you think they have no idea why one thing will affect the experiment and another will not? Do you think it's a guessing game?
Changing neckties does not affect QM experiments Neither does changing detector screens. The reason scientists know this is because - unlike you - they know there is no such thing as a "quantic random link" for whatever it was you made up.
It is trivially easy to say "all scientists could be wrong." Any five year old can doubt. The question is: why do you think that those who know the least, are the ones who know the most?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Really? I thought you said I was guilty of mysticical thougth.
But enough of this tomfoolery. You are clearly an idiot. So onto The Ignore list you go.
.........click.........
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
It is amusing that you fight against this kind of thinking (it is and it is not at the same time) and at the same time you agree with the quantum mecanis interpretations (who says exactly the same).
So you are doing the same here...
But this is not a problem : When you think so it is because "you dont know".
I have already said that "i dont know".
Then, if their method is your method (experementing only what we already knows) i understand why the have spent all their career without having never found the rational explaination of quantum mecanic.
But if you think that considering something "that is and is not" at the same time, that" is falling left and right" at the same time, etc, is rational thinking, up to you.
You think they already know all ?
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
I am not an idiot. I am a crow.
If not i would be a human.
Only humans can be idiot, crows are "other".
Idiot/Not idiot/Other : You understand the trivalent thinking and how usefull it can be relativ to binary thinking (bad/good) ?
Furthermore, an idiot do not have some efficient strategy when in front of something unknown.
I repeat my strategy :
Dicart said:
"It has something to do", i do some test, whatever.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You need to understand the scientific method.
It does not involve just willy-nilly picking tests at random.
That's why we don't do tests when the Dems are in power versus when the Reps are in power.
It's also why we don't do tests by swapping the screen in and out.
The missing requirement is the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the evidence that suggests there is a link that warrants experimentation.
There is no evidence that political climate has any causal effect on QM. Nor does the math suggest it.
There is no evidence that swapping screens has any causal effect on QM. Nor does the math suggest it.
Your idea would have scientists going down random rabbit holes instead of pursuing the evidence. There are innumerably more useless rabbit holes than there are useful evidenced avenues to explore.
Your idea is how we would never discover anything.
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
Sure.
I have a hypothesis : Since 100 years nothing never permit to understand quantum mecanic.
Lets try random testing.
But they already never discovered anything !
They are already stucked in the rabbit holes (they just dont understand that this is always the same rabbit hole...)