how do i understand the wave-particle duality intuitively?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
how do i understand the wave-particle duality intuitively?
how do i understand the wave-particle duality intuitively?
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Go full wave and punch anyone who mentions particles in the snout
see
i understand this, but it still makes no sense
why does the act of shooting photons at electrons make them act like particles instead of waves?
Complicated interaction that we can't fully grasp at this point. I mean, older scientists like to treat it like unicorn magic but its not unicorn magic.
not op but I agree. we’re just not there yet in our understanding. if we were, this wouldn’t be a question. I think about advanced lifeforms in space, and comparatively we’re in our infancy of understanding physics.
I think it’s like that with most things. we can see it on the horizon, but don’t have the technology readily available to make it work
You're all just fundamentally mistaken. That is not the change that happens and that is not the double slit experiment.
See multiple explanations such as
>wave-particle
what is this? when has it been observed in a lab
electron: particle
light:EM wave
But what about this?
This actually happens. When you use a tool to detect electrons, they act like particles. When you don't, they act like waves.
You already know which one is intuitive, punch the other guy.
This isn't a debate anymore. It's a wave until measured, at which point it becomes a particle. It's so fricking ridiculous that you literally cannot make this shit up.
No, the experiment has also been done by firing single particles which still behave like wave.
It has also been done with single particles bounced of mirrors and they still behave like waves.
Until the there is interference with the wave and it recovers its particle like properties. The collapse of the wave function doesn't cause it to stop being wavelike, and when not interfered with, the single particle doesn't lose its particle properties.
It's not an either or. It's both.
Yeah but the point is, even if you send one particle (photon/electron) through the slits one at a time you still get the same result. If it is observed it acts like a particle, but unobserved it acts like a wave.
>by firing single
PUNCH HIM RIGHT NOW, I SAID EXPLICITLY
>it's a wave until measured
????????????
how could you possibly know it is a wave until it's measured lmfao, without measuring? einstein and his consequences have been a disaster
Why do you come to this board?
why do you make definitive claims about phenomena you deliberately don't even measure then expect people to listen to you rant and rave about this shit since 1802
>definitive claims
Because they aren't claims, they are scientifically proven.
You obviously have no real interest in science and just come here to post le epic reddit frog.
The faster you chimps drop this shitty model made up specifically to hamper all progress, the faster we'll start making progress and understanding our world.
Just start from scratch bro. Or make up a new particle lol.
This doesn't have anything to do with the standard model.
because of the pattern it leaves after the slits dingus
bro it's just light you shined through 2 holes do real fricking science it's been 200 years
In both cases they behave the same way - like waves. The look is different, because you look at them from different angles. beware of copeBlack folk, they are morons.
Huh? The results of the experiment are not different due to a change in perspective, they're directly the result of the use of a tool.
When you use a photon detector, your two slits act as if they're laser pointers shooting straight forward, like if you were to shoot two parallel guns to create two bullet holes.
When you don't use a photon detector, you get a wave interference pattern like you'd expect.
It's not like the sound wave suddenly looks like two single bullet holes when I move around the room.
This isn't like a lenticular printing, dumbass
The tool changes how you observe the photons, that's a change of perspective.
No. The tool is the only way to physically observe the photons. The issue is that when you observe the photons in motion, you get a different result than if you did not observe the photons.
How has the interference pattern been changed by a change in:
The size of the slits
The distance of the slits from one another
3 or 4 slits instead of 2
Different shapes of slits
Different angles of slits in different thicknesses of material
Different angles on the edges of the slit
Different materials making up the screen with slits in it
???
This just adds more variables, the experiment has been kept the same for a reason. They have done it by bouncing particles off mirrors to rule out any interference batween the two slits though.
No shit, more variables need to be added to learn more about what might be going on:
>The size of the slits
>The distance of the slits from one another
>3 or 4 slits instead of 2
>Different shapes of slits
>Different angles of slits in different thicknesses of material
>Different angles on the edges of the slit
>Different materials making up the screen with slits in it
Do the experiment with all iterations of these different variables and we will see how the different interference patterns might result from these changes, and try to figure out the relations of the changes to causes
This experiment is so famous that it literally happens daily. It's being demonstrated in high school science classrooms with cardboard boxes made by children every single day.
I hate popsci gays, interference is not the experiment fricking homosexual. Tell me how they measure it in your kindergarden for moronic adults???
>basedentists stumped by party trick done with a flashlight and cardboard box for 200 years
I don't understand why idiots like you come to this board. Just stay on /misc/ with the other brainlets.
i'm not the one who is stuck bro
I hate that you force me to spoonfeed you just to prove you wrong, since you seem too inept to do a simple google search for any of the fricking things you listed.
>The size of the slits
https://www.compadre.org/nexusph/course/Interference_from_two_wide_slits
All this would achieve is adding more or less light to the experiment. At a certain point, you'd let so much light in that it becomes hard to see the interference.
>3 or 4 slits instead of 2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslid.html
>Different shapes of slits
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1464-4266/3/6/309
>Different angles of slits in different thicknesses of material
>Different angles on the edges of the slit
Just a more specific version of "different shapes of slits"
>Different materials making up the screen with slits in it
The only thing that matters in the experiment is whether or not the material with slits is opaque and non-reflective. You can use a transparent or reflective material, but you might get a disappointing result.
meant to reply to
So what is the light detector at the slits doing to the light that make it straigthten?
Are there other experiments that suggest light is a wave beside this slit one?
>experiments that suggest light is a wave
The experiment doesn't suggest that light is a wave. It sudgests that it can be both a wave and a particle and that it changes based on whether it is being observed or not.
>makes claim about something that he hasn't observed
every time
The observed case is just the EM waves being obsorbed and re emited but they are so close to the screen and they are no longer hitting more slits after the first slits, so the wave does not have time or means to interfere.
Has a double double slit experiment done with 2 screens of slits where sometimes the first screen has the detectors on, sometimes not, sometimes the 1st and second screen detectors are on, sometime only the 2nd? Just to see all the results of combos?
>I affected the experiment and am surprised I got different results.
Duh?
Omnicausality
Explain what is observing in electron slit.
Electrons have charge, correct?
Electrons apply and react to charges, correct?
Electrons do it all the time, correct?
Electrons react with the electrons and protons that make up the slit, correct?
Electrons react with the electrons and protons that make up the detector, correct?
Electrons influence propagates to nearby particles like chain reaction, correct?
Ok so, what changes with "observer" and "not observer"?
Is it made of dark matter, weird matter, new god particles? Where is the beginning of observing and not observing electrons?
Do you have any proof of this experiment?
So far it looks manifested your schizo delusion in visual form by drawing it on paper. In same time believing it's real and everyone should accept it. This gives me the conclusion you belong in a mental hospital. Not in a scientific community.
>Do you have any proof of this experiment?
Anon....
I cannot imagine being someone important and having some goofy science dude come into your office and insist that this is real.
When will we finally overcome relativists and their dogshit, unservicable, unintelligible model?
Lol, this is one of the most famous and well known quantum physics experiments. It is real, it has been done many times, it is still done today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Well, you guys have been stuck on it since it came out and literally have not managed to figure shit out past it. Not one god damn thing.
As far as I care you're a "doctor" still practicing off the basis of the four humors.
That is the point anon, it can't be explained. No one knows how just observing can cause a wave to collapse or how single particles can act like waves.
Scientists including Einstein have been baffled by it for almost 100 years. The greatest minds in the world have no explication for it.
It defies all the laws of physics known to man, it is literally impossible, yet it happens.
There are theories about why it happens such as a superposition state. But more than anything it shows that there is something happening which is related to simply observing.
Everything is made up of particles, how much of this stuff happens around us all of the time? Our version of reality isn't the same on a quantum scale.
All this shit is made up and you can make a normal object go faster than light by accelerating it to c, then past it, without any popsci bullshit happening. Just get more fuel lol.
>which is related to simply observing
you should say "measuring" instead of "observing" or else you might give quantum mysticists a dopamine rush
The bigger thing we don't understand is how scientists actually measured the slits, that's way bigger problem with the lack of information about the observing setup. Quite sad honestly. Couldn't careless what pre-ww2 israelite thought in his neanderthal dumb skull.
>Observation is related to simply observing.
Is it surprising?
Yeah I always though this experiment is scientists bravely discovering otherwise common knowledge, I mean no shit, interacting with the system changed it, fricking magic right there. Obviously the devil is in the details but if you start with wrong assumptions, you might never dig to details. Maybe QM is wrong assumption.
We are talking about electron version, you goddamn popsci worshipper
If you gave that picture to prehistoric greek scientist he'd just say your detector disturbed light path and gave them gauss noised effect. Modern explanation is insane and delusional.
At which point you whip out the delayed-choice quantum eraser and tell him to go sit back in his moron corner.
>At which point i whip out my quantum bible and show einstein said some spooky things
Haha that will show 'em democritos!
>This actually happens.
No it doesn't, gay.
Provide sources rather than a meme image
Here's an image with sources in it.
Now your turn idiot.
The EM field is a 3d/4d medium composed of particles. It can have waves in it. The waves can interfere with one another.
The waves when detected at the slits, are absorbed, and reemited, the reemited waves are no longer go through the slit to make the interference pattern, they just splash on the wall; the descrete particles that make up the field are seen as impact points on the wall; the particles hit the wall at different times at different velocity at different locations, this can be charred as a wave function of frequency and wavelength and amplitude
Imagine there was a graph this showed a particular stock price that over 10 year period went from $1 to $1000 at a steady consistent rate, 10,000 times in that 10 year span; a physicist might conclude that stock that exists in reality is both a particle and wave in reality
>no cocious observer
But it has been done without a conscious observer. They put a camera to observer the particles going through the slits with no one observing it and still get the same results.
>They put a camera to observer the particles going through the slits
Do you really believe the bullshit you spew out?
No they didn't
"a camera"
Anon, photons are so small that you can't view them with normal light.
Photon detection requires the use of a tool that shoots electrons at passing photons.
what if we gave one of the photons on the outside of the beam a camera to photopgraph the other phrotrons?
anon what the frick are you talking about
>have to shoot electrons through an extremely small gap
>electrons interact with atoms due to close proximity and that changes their trajectory
>frick with the fields around the electrons
>it changes the way they fly
Wow, that was fricking hard where's my nobel prize moronic homosexual
The reason that is important requires understanding history and what people were arguing at the time. Trust me, these "obvious" developments were not at all obvious when everyone was arguing about it. The problem is people are taught a myth about that debate instead of what the real debate was.
The issue was never whether one could alter the effects of energy by its interaction. This is played up as "the issue" due to public ignorance and the myth just ran amok. The issue was about probability and direction, and as it turns out the probability of the direction of the energy post-interaction mimics the probability of the waves canceling or amplifying one another.
So it is incredibly important to know that, because there was no immediately apparent reason WHY that would be the case at the time. It was argued that light was EITHER particle OR waves, come to find out energy can exhibit these behaviors but retain the properties of waves due to probability distributions.
The public misunderstanding is in what "wave-particle duality" means. It is not two things at once. It's that the behavior retains wave properties even when interacting as a particle. That's why it is such an important nobel prize winning piece of work, and I encourage you to read the original study.
>This actually happens
no. it doesn't Feynmans double-slit experiment for electrons was only ever performed in Feynmans imagination. It is a thought experiment only. I asked when it was observed in a lab.
> I asked when it was observed in a lab.
There are tens if not hundreds of double slit experimental tests of using electrons
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2012.03.017
>There are tens if not hundreds of double slit experimental tests of using electrons
show me one with indisputable evidence of destructive interference.
sure
https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1367-2630%2F15%2F3%2F033018
where do the electrons cancel each other? Where are the bands of zero intensity?
You can see they are not a lump, but more like a wave pattern. Its acceptable. But schrödinger is still wrong. The wave is just EM wave, not another, mysterious, wave.
>fails to demonstrate an electron canceling itself.
tbh this might have been the logic for copenhagen
if the wave patterns never fully cancel, then its almost as if the electrons are truly guided by probability and not discrete ever
So in the double slit electron experiment you are certain it is light that impacts thr final detector and not electrons?
a "particle" is simply an extremely localised wave. after the particle is measure it becomes a wave again. so once you localise the wave to a single slit it can no longer interfere with itself and hence there is no interference pattern.
Waves are oscillating probabilities. The detector collapses the wave changing probability to reality.
Probability and probabilities is only a human thing; Nature only functions in absolutes and definites;
Only conciousness/mind having entities that can internally project time and space beyond the constant continumn T1 S1 T2 S2 T3 S3
Only mind possessing entities can escape the non probability possessing determinism of Nature by existing at Time10 Space25 and Think of its possibilities of action at Time20 Space27
It acts as a wave until interfered with by another wave. Why is that difficult to understand? Similar to how particles travel at the speed of light and are massless unless they interact with a massless field.
that is because the tool influences the particles, there is no mystery behind it, it is just a demonstration of an issue taking measurements at the quantum scale
Observation changes the outcome of the experiment.
what kind of observation? like looking at it?
It's jargon that means "an interaction". Since to observe something necessarily means "to interact" with it. In science, there's implicit often confusing language that appropriates common usage terms for highly specialized ones. "Observer" just means "an interactor", say another particle.
The interference pattern is interaction between two diffraction patterns. You can observe them together, and the tool lets you observe them separate.
One's a Fourier transform of the other
Embrace the pilot wave theory, and ignore it's contradictions with special relativity.
Here, the experiment being done.
So you have full setup on camera, but for performing it you still used animations instead of showing the detectors being applied.
I don't know if this was done as troll video or something. But whoever spreads this propaganda experiment must be a stupid to believe we will fall for such "inconvience"
There are many videos on YouTube anon, Google 'double slit experiment' and read anyone of the hundreds of millions of articles you can find.
None of them show detector being applied live.
Been there done that, its just farting then eating the farts contest.
Shitload of "hot takes" that are actually garbage and worthless, not even 1% of people that make these videos made the full experiment themselfs.
The video I posted shows exactly that, try watching it.
Everyone knows the double-slit experiment is real, you can do it yourself with a laser pointer. It's the right-hand side of
that's a made-up result. You can destroy the interference pattern by disturbing the particles too much, but you do not get the result shown in that image.
>Everyone knows the double-slit experiment is real, you can do it yourself with a laser pointer
Follow the reply chain to understand the context of the replies.
>that's a made-up result
It isn't, watch the videos I posted.
>You can destroy the interference pattern by disturbing the particles
Well durr. Obviously you break it if you disturb the particles.
There is no disturbance in the experiment, it is set up with that purpose in mind. The result only changes if you try to observe the particles going through the slits.
Unobserved it is a wave, obseverved it is a partical.
This is literally the result you get from the experime
>It isn't, watch the videos I posted.
It is a made up result, a billion CGI pop-sci videos will not make it real.
>It is a made up result
Lol the videos show the experiment being done live you idiot.
Let's take
for example. They show a real double-slit pattern from a real experiment, then cut to CGI that shows the made-up result. You're going to have lots of videos showing
because it's a real result. You don't have anything showing the right-hand side of
. Closest thing you have is a guy having kids blow sand through holes.
Which is what a lot of his own linked videos show if you clicked on any of them - you two are literally arguing past one another. Frick sake.
You now understand how politics arose.
Just another day on the internet convincing myself that literacy rates are far lower than claimed.
Different anon, I think you're both arguing over a misunderstanding and you've the right of it. I don't think you're being understood is the issue, and got responded to as if you're somehow denying science.
You two are talking past one another. The thing the other anon is saying doesn't occur is the second image as Sabine also explains here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U
You DO NOT get clustering as you sometimes see in wrong illustrations or fake videos. You still get an interference pattern, which is what the other anon is trying to explain and what your linked videos show.
You two are arguing about the same thing you both agree on goddamnit.
>Here, the experiment being done
Why is science so overloaded with dumb hoaxes?
can wave particle duality please explain why my fart smelled like both a pumpkin and a mummy at the same time?
Go ask reddit
Too many seasonal lattes at the Egyptian Starbucks
Basically the "wave-particle duality" spread all over hells half acre was just a lie/misunderstanding.
Energy is always a wave. Always. That is why interactions destroy the interference pattern as the other anon points out. The interaction, "measurement", simply localizes that into a point in space. A completely different idea than one the vast majority of people have been wrongly taught.
The error stems from fundamental misunderstanding with what "a detector" is. Necessarily, something causing an interaction. That interaction localizes the energy that then, unsurprisingly, behaves like a particle. This does not eliminate the wave pattern either, as enough particles reproduce the wave pattern in succession. As the wave pattern is a representation of other properties, a distribution of random directions.
that is a nice explanation
>The interaction, "measurement", simply localizes that into a point in space
how?
Sorry I might've not been clear. That part of the interaction stuff where it'd appear from superposition largely applies to near-zero temperatures.
So the answer to "how" is "adding energy by definition". Sorry that does not really have to do with your usual double slit. My mistake. Got carried away. At normal energy levels it can always be described as a particle IIRC.
But that's kind of the edge of my knowledge here, so maybe I'm mistaken.
>A completely different idea than one the vast majority of people have been wrongly taught.
No wonder people have wrong ideas if you call measurment/interaction an observation. This is so stupid.
Dunno if you know the answer but: what kind of interactions are used to localize these waves in the experiments
the wave of the particle interacts with tens of trillions of particles as it propagates across the space of the experimental setup, but it only "collapses" when it interacts with the particles in the detector?
Why are the particles in the detector special vs. all the other particles in the experiment?
Because modern science is fake, we lost fundamental knowledge and ruined it. Electromagnetism fields and waves don't even exist fundamentally.
Anytime I say something funny no one is there. Whenever I try to say something funny when people are watching it's not funny. Except for wave-particles.
99% of people in theoretical physics departments are too stupid to solve the grandest mysteries and complexity of the universe, masters, PhDs, knights and sirs, are all permanent freshmen.
These are not the areas that anyone can just get a certificate and plug into a human history of highest geniuses. And expect the same results and outcomes of progresses, that the rarest exception cases of humans psychotically dedicated themselves to solving. The PhD masters toting freshmen of the universe these days are very ill equipped at knowing what thinking actually is
It's spacetime, not space.
It's luminescence and voltages, not geometric mass and ballistic trajectories. It's a much coarser dumber interaction.
The medium is inside the wire and the screen. There's no tiny little particles moving through the slits.
Something gets ionized. A screen lights up. That's all.
Serves them right, they trusted a israelite
Just be a wave and a particle simultaneously if you want to understand it intuitively.
By accepting reality, not fantasy stories from modern scientists.
Light is a wave, electrons are particles.
Electrons generate EM=light wave (frequency is possibly outside of your vision range).
Thus, shooting either fron double slit, generates a wave pattern.
>By accepting reality
>pilot wave
You know not even Einstein liked that interpretation right
Why should I care about le juif de physique modern has to say?
I agree one thing with him. QM is bullshit and incomplete. You just can't have illogical EPR paradox and claim its normal if you accept QM reality.
Can someone explain what this wench means at 2:45: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U
I feel like I'm being gaslit.
You probably missed the important phrase before that, "if you let one particle through you still get an interference pattern". The important part after 2:45 is that interference pattern post-interaction and only allowing one slit will disappear, BUT if you added the sums back together from your end plate (or whatever) mathematically you'd get an interference pattern again.
So, a completely separate part of a double slit experiment most people never mention but an important one. Pointing out it can still be represented by a wave function - just through one slit. The probabilities remain the same (a distribution) and this does not look like neatly separated blobs as is often falsely shown. Again, this only applies to the part of the experiment where one is measuring the energy (inherently requiring interaction keep in mind) through only one slit.
The reason it's never mentioned is we're so long past the archaic debate over whether some energy "is" a particle or "is" a wave as some ontological thing. Energy can be described as a distribution, a waveform, and interactions localize that energy in a manner that can be described as a point that still obeys a probability distribution of a waveform. No contradiction, no "being two things at once" (another common misunderstanding), and an important part of why the double slit was important to show this.
What part do you feel gaslit by?
>Energy can be described as a distribution, a waveform, and interactions localize that energy in a manner that can be described as a point that still obeys a probability distribution of a waveform
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALL THE WAYS HUMANS CAN DESCRIBE THINGS AND THE REAL REALITY WAY THINGS REALLY ACTUALLY ARE IN AND AS REALITY.
MOST PEOPLE WHEN SEEKING ABOUT THIS TOPIC ARE INFINITLY MOST INTERESTED IN THE LATTER, SO TRY TO TRY YOUR BEST AT NEVER CONFLATING THE TWO.
I should also point out at the time we did not at first know WHY the probabilities represented as a waveform nor WHY measuring it differently caused things to change - the mistake was in how it was thought about in the first place as with most things. The part she calls "weird" is the fact how you measure it could remove the interference pattern, and I think that's where she fricked up by complying with the "meme". It isn't weird at all. Remove half of a wave and you don't have the half you removed creating an interference pattern. Not weird. Entirely to be expected on that front.
It's just a lot of background or history stuff that gets omitted to make really mundane things seem special or magical to sadly keep people clicking or watching "top 10 universe mysteries" or stupid shit like that. There's nothing unfathomable about any of it.
So the "weird" part historically to physicists EONS AGO was the fact energy behaved like this contrary to expectations of some ontological status of what that energy was. Not the goddamn NOT WEIRD fact you can remove the interference pattern by only measuring one slit.
Again, keep in mind for QM "measurement means interaction by definition". So what is being done is an interaction of some kind that causes some scattering and the result of this is random. THAT is also unexpected for our old physicists. You get an unpredictable, on an individual basis, scattering. Which is what this and all that quantum decoherence/coherence stuff is really about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
The most intuitive understanding is that its some sort of an entanglement happening when its observed at the holes and entanglement not happening at detection. So when entanglement occurs, we only see the pair that entangled with our universe. When its not, we get a spread out events defined by statistical spread of the wave.
What a nonsense. If you cant explain things logically and such way a smart layman can understand, clearly the theory is just wrong.
His understanding of it is, not the theory. You're both idiots.
How can you undestand ' unicorns and magic fairies' without drugs or mental illness?
Boom. You're welcome OP.
You can't, don't even try.
Wait so does the diffraction pattern on the screen disappear with a photon detector in the slits or not? If not, why not? Feynman's prediction doesn't actually happen? I'm still confused about this part.
As I've kept trying to clarify, to cut through the BS you really have to go read original sources to find out what people were really talking about. This is especially the case with Feynman, where many misunderstandings arise by myths spread by misunderstanding. Think like a game of chinese telephone. If you can, borrow or read the book "the character of physical law" on Chapter 6 page 136 to page 138. https://archive.org/details/characterofphysi0000feyn_a6t9/page/138/mode/2up?view=theater
As Feynman wrote, "We close one hole, and measure how many come through hole No. 1, and we get the simple curve N_1. Or we can close the other hole and measure how many come through hole No. 2, and we get the N_2 curve. But these two added together do not give the same as N_1+N_2; it does show interference." - chapter 6 page 138 of "The character of physical law" (1965)
We get exactly that, exactly what Feynman says. The important part to understand is you DO still get an interference pattern with one slit if you added up single electrons and Feynman IS NOT saying you do not. That is the colossal misunderstanding people have. Pay special attention to that: The real weird part is that adding together hole #1 and hole #2 does not give you the results of 1+2 but gives you a different interference pattern. This makes perfect sense in terms of waves, and the reason it is written about as if "it makes no sense" is due to philosophers in the 1930s, and scientists, holding wrong beliefs about the necessary consistency of experiments and nature.
Feynman's prediction actually happens, everyone is just completely wrong in relating what the prediction is and completely wrong in explaining everything about it. Individual particles still build up an interference pattern, and the "doubly surprising" thing is the individual particles measured at N_1 and individually measured at N_2 added together do not match both slits open at the same time firing individual particles.
Firing a single particle through one slit does not create sn interference pattern?.
Sending 1 particle at a time through 1 slit; each particle lands on a different spot (because they were not a rifle being shot with scope by best marksman)
The totality of the landing spots are summed and said to be a pseudo interference pattern? Pseudo because there was no real time interference going on, it's just a plot distribution after the fact
I see I should have clarified. Sorry about that. It is when you add them together, mathematically, they would have made for an interference pattern. That is the thought experiment part here as well.
Now if you simply look at one live, yes there will be an interference pattern as it is a wave still through one slit. The thought experiment part is "if we were to reconstruct those individual particles" they would still behave as if they were part of a wave, even if they are individual particles, when reconstructed for their spin and so on.
Oh, also, this as a thought experiment would have been in the 1930s when this was devised. We can do that now, of course, and recording the details reconstructing it back the thought experiment ended up exactly true in reality as well.
Again, sorry, I forget some things others probably may make wrong assumptions about.
its because light moves like a wave through time
>there is only one god, but there is the father, son, and holy spirit
>i don't understand, does anyone have some convoluted, circular logic dogma i can memorize in order to demonstrate obedience to the ivory tower priests?
Unfortunately
you don't, its a cia coverup for the real secrets of unlimited energy
What a fricking terrible board.
go back to whatever shithole forum you came from, moron
do not lurk more
If you take an electron and wave it up and down in one location 10,000 times, it will propagate away from its body EM radiation thoughout that activity, yes?
Where is that EM radiation that propagates coming from? Where and in what form is it in the moment before and leading up to the initial electron movement?
This is a key question
Key question guys weve got a key question over here, someone answer this key question guys
You sound very ironic.
I'm not. It is a key question and I can't wait till someone smart answers it, I'm unironically sounding the alarm
Key question alert, key question alert, key question here, get your fresh hot ice cold key questions here
The usual method of having an electron brrrrrrr and do electromagnetic work for you is to give it incentives in the form of energy input.
I heard that electrons when accelerated result in EM propagation.
You are saying there is no way to.accelerate electrons and produce that EM radiation, without using EM radiation to accelerate the electron, thus possibly implying the electron is not forcing the EM radiation to propagate, but EM radiation is sent (how?) Towards an electron, and that same EM radiation is detected which I thought was a result coming from the accelerated electron?.
The electron doesn't wave. That's not what particle wave duality means.
If you oscillate an electron, the em waves generated convert energy from whatever is causing the oscillation.
>The electron doesn't wave. That's not what particle wave duality means.
>If you oscillate an electron, the em waves generated convert energy from whatever is causing the oscillation.
I heard EM radiation is propagated away when an electron is accelerated;
There are electrons in my hand, yes; if I wave my hand up and down 100 times, I am accelerating electrons in my hand right?
EM radiation is not being propagated away from the electrons in my hand, due to my hand waving?.
Yo guys, clarify
you must be a psued
electrons by themselves will emit radiation yes, and accelerating them using a magnetic field in a specifically tuned resonator is exactly how microwaves are generated. The deal is that the electrons themselves have to oscillate, they do not emit anything when coupled to matter. microwaves work because the magnetrons guided magnetic field prevents electrons from reaching the anode, thusly the electrons spend time freely about oscillating, speeding up and slowing down and they swing around the magnetic field trying their hardest to make it to the other pole
If my hand or a metal stick is made primarily of electrons, why is waving it up and down not accelerating the electrons
because they are bound to matter and are not freely moving through space
try learning english if you want to learn science bub
"Electromagnetic waves are emitted by electrically charged particles undergoing acceleration,[4][5]"
If I wave my hand up and down, and a metal bar up and down, why are the electrons that my hand and metal bar are, not being accelerated?.
>If you take an electron and wave it up and down in one location 10,000 times, it will propagate away from its body EM radiation thoughout that activity, yes?
Assuming you're doing so with some kind of force, so energy would be lost or hypothetically some kind of friction is applied, yes. Say you have an electron. Without some sort of change, it won't lose energy, so let us whack it with a tiny particle to cause it to lose energy. If it does lose energy, that can be measured as a wave radiating from the particle or described as a particle in and of itself. Such as a photon for example.
>Where is that EM radiation that propagates coming from? Where and in what form is it in the moment before and leading up to the initial electron movement?
The same energy you whacked with a particle, or manipulated in some way. It is not a solid marble, but more like a sticky wave if you want to mentalize it. I often think it is best not to see things in terms of particles, because while things can be described as particles this is only a model. One that works, for some things, but not everything. All of "quantum mechanics" behave in reality like waves, and is perhaps best visualized as some sort of "sticky energy" not as a marble. Probability density may help you here (see image).
It can be described as a particle. In certain conditions, the higher the energy state, it'll better match what the particle model describes. In extremely low energy states, close to absolute zero, seemingly loses that "marble like" structure because it never was one in the first place. It just behaves as one as the more energy it has the more dense it appears. This may help, from "quantum made simple": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quantum_superposition_of_states_and_decoherence.ogv
Quantum mechanics is bullshit and I'm tired of pretending that it's not
You know, I think there are just too many old people at it now. All this magical unicorn bullshit talk like "nobody understands quantum mechanics", going on and on how all that shit is hard when kod today will get it all pretty fast, same with relativity. Its bunch of old farts being amazed at their inability to comprehend simple ideas and playing smart guys. We need something better, much better than those old theories, we are not close to nailing it, we just reached the point when fun is over and shit gets real. Old world needs to die first.
>We need something better
That's MWI.
Correct. It is not enough to merely be willing to consider new ideas. One must also consider the possibility that old ideas, which have already been accepted, are wrong.
The real theory will be physically intuitive.
>I'm young and hip and smarter than old people
>Becomes old person if smart enough to not die
>Gets told by kids how dumb he is and that the young are smart now
Indeed, such is the cycle of life and I'm not the one to deny it.
the problem is that the young havent been guided correctly and now we dont have people willing to take their places or the people who can take the places are horribly inept for the job worse so than the old people who had it before them
by watching more popsci on youtube
It’s like the holy trinity or the Buddha’s dharma idk what’s so hard
Stop thinking of the material world as having observer independent reality and it makes sense. It only doesn't make sense if you try to look at as if matter is real as opposes to virtual. Think of your self as being in a first person shooter game. When you look to the left, that which was to the right which is no longer being rendered can be described using the wave situation. That which is to the left, which IS being looked at/rendered, is the particle situation.
Start with this paper
On testing the simulation theory
Abstract:
Can the theory that reality is a simulation be tested? We investigate this ques-
tion based on the assumption that if the system performing the simulation is finite
(i.e. has limited resources), then to achieve low computational complexity, such a
system would, as in a video game, render content (reality) only at the moment that
information becomes available for observation by a player and not at the moment of
detection by a machine (that would be part of the simulation and whose detection
would also be part of the internal computation performed by the Virtual Reality
server before rendering content to the player). Guided by this principle we describe
conceptual wave/particle duality experiments aimed at testing the simulation theory.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf
Mind posting a non-trash, non-schizo paper next time? Thanks
>Reality is just VR game because my boomer brain doesn't understand it
>Universe doesn't render things you don't see
>But has to compensate and render all of it once you look at it
You realize this is like the worst optimization method you could possibly do in computing?
You invent moronic delusional quantum mechanics and try to support the claims by relying on computers and rendering optimizations applied in 3D games, just frick off already.
>You realize this is like the worst optimization method you could possibly do in computing?
You aren't considering persistence and time. just because your computer runs at 5ghz doesnt mean you get 5,000,000,000 frames per second. Neither does your FPS determine how long the day/night cycle is.
For persistence on this timescale, simulating a realy, really really really really ducking really, big falling sand game is the only way. It looks like a mess because of the sheer stability
>how do i understand the wave-particle duality intuitively?
If you redirect the measurement to a speaker and here some noise than you have a triality.
Forget about the “particle”. Everything is a wave.
There is no wave-particle duality. Everything is waves, and particle-ness is a phenomenon that these waves exhibit.
Describe the waves, how physically large are they, how long, what kind of substance type are the made of? What is making the wave (to be clear wave doesn't imply up down up down up down smooth wave; are the waves you are reffering to often like these waves? Or more often like waves with values like; up to 5, down to -4, up to 3 down to -2 up to -1 down to -2 up to 4 down to 2, down to -2 up to 3
Or no, because many waves in nature like radio waves containing music, travel consistently a very specific way,;
Or is what being detected, particles landing at a detector in different locations (equaling those numbers of plotted line wave graph above) so fast (I mean do all parts of the wave touch the detector in t1 t2 t3 t4 t5
And the only solution is that some object must have forced some object to shake, to send a shaking, continumnly in a specific encoding of that shake causers shake;.
And the material made to shake a specific way traveling foreward, impartes the detector with points along its continumn shaked/waved body,
Good stuff, I too await an answer to your inquisitations
So a wave can be X5 Y5 X5 Y5 X5 Y5
At t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
And as well as more ways also like:
X5 Y-4 X3 Y-2 X-1 Y-2
At t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
When the wave hits the detector over the course of t1-t6
Is what is hitting the detector over the course to t1 to t6; a singular connected to itself (how) body?
Is the length extent of this wave body strictly and strongly prior to detector crashing, just prior to t1, at t0 or t-1; intimately, how strongly, connected at its front and back tip, to anything else, or is the wave an unconnected thing, that is t1 to t6 extent long unconnected physically to anything else in the universe prior to t1 detector hitting; and when the wave does hit the detector: when it's body hits the detector from t1 to t6, where does it's body exactly go after t6? (Starting after the very front tip of it's body hits detector at t1)?
>So a wave can be X5 Y5 X5 Y5 X5 Y5
>At t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
Oops
If a wave is: X5 Y-5 X5 Y-5 X5 Y-5
At t1 t2 t3 t4 t5
Does this imply the body of that wave may collide with detector: x0 y0 x0 y0 x0 y0
At t1.5
t2.5
t3.5
t4.5
t5.5 ?
Such a wave is nessecerily a continumn which touches upon every infinitesimal point along the x axis?
Like if you took a leather belt and walked up to a wall and then put one end against the wall and starting from that end, put the material directly next to the end, made to be lying flush with the wall, then take thee material area directly next to that and bend it up to lay flush with the wall.
An object body, interacting with every point along a particular range of x axis.
For this to happen over and over the same way, a wave is implied.
>x0 y0 x0 y0 x0 y0
xy0,0 xy0,0 xy0,0 xy0,0 xy0,0
The agaro spot proves light is always waves and literally never particles..
Organisation breeds intuition. Or something like that. Mentally going through a lot of different scenarios involving it might lead to you understanding it intuitively.
>Oh, you are trying to measure my process?
>Anti-Cheat: Activate
Everything is a particle. Waves never interact with matter. But where a particle is, and what it interacts with, follows patterns that act like waves. How to intuit it is up to you. You can just see particles as big blurry things until they hit something, or you can see them as tiny particles following superluminal Bohm waves.
That the word "particle" is a misnomer because the fundamental "particles" are actually waves, not the globules you image them as.
Once you start thinking about electrons as waveforms instead of basketballs everything makes more sense.
Everyone saying particles are balls or waves are full of shit. Particles are particles and as such, they have their own unique behaviors and that is exactly the source of confusion from double slit experiment.
It isn't useful or intuitive to teach people this is what electrons are like in reality
That's a 2D animation of a slice of a pilot wave with density plotted on the z axis. It would be nice if this theory was true, but it probably isn't, since it doesn't explain chirality.
>Everything is just different waves
Its time to stop posting, you still don't have any proofs.