i adhere to the consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics which would say that each and every electron’s state was determined at the instant of their creation or last interaction event
no anon, wait a few more years and you will see it. the woke types love to question anything that sounds “binary”. you remember how they had that campaign about how 2+2=4 is patriarchy? and 2+2=5 is valid for “alternative lived experiences”? that’s simply an attack on the binary of “True vs. False”. they hate even the binary between true and false
>What is that word written on the light blue box all the way to the left?
“oven”
you can also perform this experiment using a particle accelerator and the results are even more binary >Anyway how many electrons are emitted out of that box per trial?
you can do it with any number of electrons and you always get the same result >Electrons repulse one another don't they?.
in this experiment the electron-electron interaction is negligible
repulse one another don't they?. >in this experiment the electron-electron interaction is negligible
For the experiment to work at all the electrons must be relatively near each other during first emission;
As they travel through the magnetic field they are perhaps very quickly brought closer, and very quickly collide and repulse and further momentumized by the magnetic field.
The magnetic field quickly alligns them all, and if they are in relative proximity, there is a central cut off point where north becomes south;
The electrons path of least resistance is at this central point,
They are quickly drawn to it and then ones drawn from the bottom and those from the top respectively rise up and drop down, accelerated forward with repulsion, and distinctified their spin
>why the frick should classical prediction be top one? QM shitters just make strawmans to justify their shitty illogical madness.
no one will answer this. ever. Even if you did go through the effort to do a real classical derivative you could never publish it. The Science Narrative can't be questioned.
Is one of the big things about Quantum, that it was assumed waves are continous, and even in Quantum they are... unless it is the belief that all of what we're previously detected and believed to be continous 1,0,-1,0,1,0,-1,0,1,0,-1,0,1,0,-1,0 waves, were actually pulses of energy, not with an actual crest 0 trough 0 crest 0 trough 0, arc up arc down arc up arc down arc up arc down. Interstingly 1 single wave is only a crest! That's a very important point and hint and clue, because all single crests are exactly a specific quantity of energy, a quanta of energy.
So yes, it was thought they were fluid continual waves, but really they may have been always singular pulses of crests;
And further more!
When dealing with electron atom em wave absorbtion, if we are thinking of continous waves, why wouldn't we think the electron can absorb 1/5th or 1/10th or 1/13th or 1/48383th or 1/947738373 amount of energy from an em wave;
Well the atom can, be moved by these amounts; but only specific amounts will raise the electron up a level?
And those amounts are only particular quantities, quanta.
Still don't see anything not classical about this, besides a little sophistication and less forward in understanding the heights and depths of what underlies the tradition of the classical notion.
>That's a very important point and hint and clue, because all single crests are exactly a specific quantity of energy, a quanta of energy.
Comes back to this idea; two people holding either end of a jump rope;
One person holds their hands still, the other person 1 single time moves their end up and then down.
When they reach the resting position of the Down motion; that establishes a base line from them across to the other person; only an arc/crest is sent across, there is no dip below the base line, there is no trough;
The person to make that forward propagating crest however, had to lift Up, and drop down, force energy up, and then force energy down.
Forcing up, is kind of the wienering load, and the entire ropes baseline arcs up:
And when they then force their hands down, the entire brought up arc of the rope as a whole, is then compressed into a smaller proportion stemming from the raiser and droppers end.
They lift Up, the whole rope comes up
The drop Down, the whole rope comes down to rest at a position, and a crest is sent from one end to the other, proportional to the height they lifted their arms too, and the force by which they dropped them, (frequency and wave length? Can a single crest have a frequency, is it always a frequency of 1, it was only frequent 1 time? Or it was not frequent, frequency requires more than 1 occurance of something?
2 years ago
Anonymous
This doesn't make any sense. Photons aren't single wave crests. Quantum particles have no classical analog.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This doesn't make any sense. Photons aren't single wave crests. Quantum particles have no classical analog.
photons aren't real. The theory is a hack.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So a single photon is a single (1) existing crest and trough?
Like the shape of 'V' that moves from A to B? Or 1 single photon can look like this:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
if that is one photon what is 2 photons?
VVVVVV .VVVVVVVV
2 years ago
Anonymous
No. A photon is a particle and a wave at once. You can't visualize it in terms of excitations of some abstract field. It's not like a jump rope. You can only understand it with mathematics.
2 years ago
Anonymous
proof?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The double slit experiment. If photons were ripples in the EM field they should hit whole patches of particles on the screen at once, but a single photon can only interact with a single particle.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is it because the experiment is done in such close proximity, it doesn't have time to infurl into a wave? Or because when a single photon crashes through the slit it disturbs the underlying field and radiates more energy off the material of the slit towards the detector?
Is it because when it collides with the detector impact energy is sent latteraly through the detector system so the detections on the side of the impact are due to lateral shockwave energy transfer?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but a single photon can only interact with a single particle
Single photons do not exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Single photons do not exist.
Is that because the EM field is so sensitive that it can never precisely be 'wobbled' 1 single time;
If it is attempted to be wobbled as slightly and smally and delicately as possible, it still reverberates due to its local equilibrium being disturbed, and it not possessing the strong stable tensility to withstand a single interruption and halt that interruption as a single solitary pulse of vibration
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Is that because the EM field is so sensitive that it can never precisely be 'wobbled' 1 single time
Yes but they phrase it as:
Our tools aren't precise enough to detect or measure it. Its likely a single perturbation could exist but it would need a completely controlled field to produce it. No matter where you are in this kind of space, you are flooded with EMR. In fact everything is just noise, but using carriers or focusing in on certian bandwidths is how we distinctualize any photons from the rest.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Cool that would inspire me to ask:
How much free space is in that noise; how densely packed is the emr?
For example, the classical macro view of the ocean looks like there is no empty space in there. It looks perfectly dense full of water.
Micro atomic and quantum theory suggest things are not absolutely densely packed.
They say there is vacuum in between atoms or subatomic particles or molecules.
Vacuum at least laymanly used to mean pure absolute nothing.
But now vacuum might mean pure absolute something, just not atom stuff, exactly.
So now asking of vacuum, asking of em field asking of gravity field.
Either there is absolutely no real pure true existence of actual Nothing space amidst these fields of stuff; or there is some amount.
I won't be happy about it but I am prepared to have the swift discussion regarding the highschoolers kneejerk reaction to the word 'nothing' and how can nothing be nothing if you make a word for it that means its not nothing mannnn, for all you physicsts that hate philosophy you sure give undeniable reasons for it's nessecity in your field
2 years ago
Anonymous
No you can't.
When a photon is generated, it is either roughly like:
V
Or
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
Or
O
Or
.
Or
*~~*~~*~~*~~
Or
-------------
Or
****************
Or
~~~~~~~
Or
()
Or
••••••••
Or
}}}}}}}}}
Or more similar to some other way, if you don't know you don't know, but you don't think you are anywhere near the most knowing person in the world on the subject do you
2 years ago
Anonymous
you can't describe this thing with one frequency. you can't apply E=hf.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So in regards to a purely single photon; does it have a frequency?
Or only wave length and energy level and energy level is different than the idea of frequency?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So in regards to a purely single photon; does it have a frequency?
The only thing that has a frequency is an infinite sinusoid. Everything else has multiple frequencies. Photons don't exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, but you have to imagine those as 4d shapes
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah of course, and thats because "it is ezz dammit" trust me bro, source: me
First off this is a drawing and not an actual result. In the real experiment there is a small but relatively negligible gradient between the two dots.
Second off, no there isn't a spectrum in polarity's absolute sense, but there is also no such thing as a binary field. There objectively is a space between poles and the field 100% has a form in that space.
My intuition is that an experiment like this won't prove the binary nature of some attribute. As it could just be a positive feedback loop. The particle gets attracted to the magnet by some (slight) amount, thus gets closer to it, which in turn increases the attraction. So effectively all should land at some maximum deviation from their original path.
OP here. just wanted to say that i was hoping that this thread would be successful by encouraging positive discussion about how real science lends a firm support to clear objective thinking about binaries that undeniably exist like spin and true/false and fact/fantasy. unfortunately it has failed because all i see here is a lot of seethe/cope and pseud paychobabble.
please continue though. it’s interesting to see how zoomers deal with objective scientific realities that don’t align with their personal fancies
No, electrons just... spin. It's not really in a direction as such, or else you'd get lots of different dots. You can't change spin either, it's not like a basketball. There's no classical analog.
Positrons would annihilate when they hit the screen, since they're antimatter. Electrons all have the same charge. Some of them just spin up and some down.
Not nessecarilly;. Think about lanes on a highway, 2 lanes ; but in this beam example it's probably more like 1000 lane highway;
A medium approaches (the middle of the north and south pole of the field)
Electrons they are in the left lane are forced left, right lane forced to exit right (in the picture, up and down)
They are forced towards the center of the field, and this forcing causes the upper an lower of the beam to repulse away
2 years ago
Anonymous
>and this forcing causes the upper an lower of the beam to repulse away
So does this work without any magnet then? If it's just electrons repelling eachother
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't know havent done the experiment, likely depends on the nozzle of the beam
Here is a collection of some of the questions I have asked on this board the past few weeks. Apologies for the duplicate questions and typoes of general sloppiness. Maybe someday I will have the energy and effort and patience to edit it better and add more questions but it is too much for me at this time.
Yes. And?
and i’m tired of postmodernist deconstructional critical theoretical humanities majors trying to tell me otherwise
but that's after you measured them anon
what were the electrons doing ((before)) they were measured?
i adhere to the consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics which would say that each and every electron’s state was determined at the instant of their creation or last interaction event
I'm no fan of homosexualry, but you're conflating quantitative with qualitative traits
no anon, wait a few more years and you will see it. the woke types love to question anything that sounds “binary”. you remember how they had that campaign about how 2+2=4 is patriarchy? and 2+2=5 is valid for “alternative lived experiences”? that’s simply an attack on the binary of “True vs. False”. they hate even the binary between true and false
wow. do you know nothing of gender field theory? take the GFT pill anon
https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Gender_Field_theory
op, are you trying to say non-binaries exist?
anon, can you read?
yes, but i can't type. let me rectify my error.
op, are you trying to say non-binaries don't exist? i hope jannies remove your post for transphobia
it's so cool that the electrons binary states just happen to align with that external magnetic field. What a coincidence.
the mind associates the sun with the male, the moon with the female
are you saying the mind likes it jung?
What is that word written on the light blue box all the way to the left?
Anyway how many electrons are emitted out of that box per trial?
Electrons repulse one another don't they?.
>What is that word written on the light blue box all the way to the left?
“oven”
you can also perform this experiment using a particle accelerator and the results are even more binary
>Anyway how many electrons are emitted out of that box per trial?
you can do it with any number of electrons and you always get the same result
>Electrons repulse one another don't they?.
in this experiment the electron-electron interaction is negligible
repulse one another don't they?.
>in this experiment the electron-electron interaction is negligible
For the experiment to work at all the electrons must be relatively near each other during first emission;
As they travel through the magnetic field they are perhaps very quickly brought closer, and very quickly collide and repulse and further momentumized by the magnetic field.
The magnetic field quickly alligns them all, and if they are in relative proximity, there is a central cut off point where north becomes south;
The electrons path of least resistance is at this central point,
They are quickly drawn to it and then ones drawn from the bottom and those from the top respectively rise up and drop down, accelerated forward with repulsion, and distinctified their spin
This on the right track?
why the frick should classical prediction be top one? QM shitters just make strawmans to justify their shitty illogical madness.
>why the frick should classical prediction be top one? QM shitters just make strawmans to justify their shitty illogical madness.
no one will answer this. ever. Even if you did go through the effort to do a real classical derivative you could never publish it. The Science Narrative can't be questioned.
Is one of the big things about Quantum, that it was assumed waves are continous, and even in Quantum they are... unless it is the belief that all of what we're previously detected and believed to be continous 1,0,-1,0,1,0,-1,0,1,0,-1,0,1,0,-1,0 waves, were actually pulses of energy, not with an actual crest 0 trough 0 crest 0 trough 0, arc up arc down arc up arc down arc up arc down. Interstingly 1 single wave is only a crest! That's a very important point and hint and clue, because all single crests are exactly a specific quantity of energy, a quanta of energy.
So yes, it was thought they were fluid continual waves, but really they may have been always singular pulses of crests;
And further more!
When dealing with electron atom em wave absorbtion, if we are thinking of continous waves, why wouldn't we think the electron can absorb 1/5th or 1/10th or 1/13th or 1/48383th or 1/947738373 amount of energy from an em wave;
Well the atom can, be moved by these amounts; but only specific amounts will raise the electron up a level?
And those amounts are only particular quantities, quanta.
Still don't see anything not classical about this, besides a little sophistication and less forward in understanding the heights and depths of what underlies the tradition of the classical notion.
>That's a very important point and hint and clue, because all single crests are exactly a specific quantity of energy, a quanta of energy.
Comes back to this idea; two people holding either end of a jump rope;
One person holds their hands still, the other person 1 single time moves their end up and then down.
When they reach the resting position of the Down motion; that establishes a base line from them across to the other person; only an arc/crest is sent across, there is no dip below the base line, there is no trough;
The person to make that forward propagating crest however, had to lift Up, and drop down, force energy up, and then force energy down.
Forcing up, is kind of the wienering load, and the entire ropes baseline arcs up:
And when they then force their hands down, the entire brought up arc of the rope as a whole, is then compressed into a smaller proportion stemming from the raiser and droppers end.
They lift Up, the whole rope comes up
The drop Down, the whole rope comes down to rest at a position, and a crest is sent from one end to the other, proportional to the height they lifted their arms too, and the force by which they dropped them, (frequency and wave length? Can a single crest have a frequency, is it always a frequency of 1, it was only frequent 1 time? Or it was not frequent, frequency requires more than 1 occurance of something?
This doesn't make any sense. Photons aren't single wave crests. Quantum particles have no classical analog.
>This doesn't make any sense. Photons aren't single wave crests. Quantum particles have no classical analog.
photons aren't real. The theory is a hack.
So a single photon is a single (1) existing crest and trough?
Like the shape of 'V' that moves from A to B? Or 1 single photon can look like this:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
if that is one photon what is 2 photons?
VVVVVV .VVVVVVVV
No. A photon is a particle and a wave at once. You can't visualize it in terms of excitations of some abstract field. It's not like a jump rope. You can only understand it with mathematics.
proof?
The double slit experiment. If photons were ripples in the EM field they should hit whole patches of particles on the screen at once, but a single photon can only interact with a single particle.
Is it because the experiment is done in such close proximity, it doesn't have time to infurl into a wave? Or because when a single photon crashes through the slit it disturbs the underlying field and radiates more energy off the material of the slit towards the detector?
Is it because when it collides with the detector impact energy is sent latteraly through the detector system so the detections on the side of the impact are due to lateral shockwave energy transfer?
>but a single photon can only interact with a single particle
Single photons do not exist.
>Single photons do not exist.
Is that because the EM field is so sensitive that it can never precisely be 'wobbled' 1 single time;
If it is attempted to be wobbled as slightly and smally and delicately as possible, it still reverberates due to its local equilibrium being disturbed, and it not possessing the strong stable tensility to withstand a single interruption and halt that interruption as a single solitary pulse of vibration
>Is that because the EM field is so sensitive that it can never precisely be 'wobbled' 1 single time
Yes but they phrase it as:
Our tools aren't precise enough to detect or measure it. Its likely a single perturbation could exist but it would need a completely controlled field to produce it. No matter where you are in this kind of space, you are flooded with EMR. In fact everything is just noise, but using carriers or focusing in on certian bandwidths is how we distinctualize any photons from the rest.
Cool that would inspire me to ask:
How much free space is in that noise; how densely packed is the emr?
For example, the classical macro view of the ocean looks like there is no empty space in there. It looks perfectly dense full of water.
Micro atomic and quantum theory suggest things are not absolutely densely packed.
They say there is vacuum in between atoms or subatomic particles or molecules.
Vacuum at least laymanly used to mean pure absolute nothing.
But now vacuum might mean pure absolute something, just not atom stuff, exactly.
So now asking of vacuum, asking of em field asking of gravity field.
Either there is absolutely no real pure true existence of actual Nothing space amidst these fields of stuff; or there is some amount.
I won't be happy about it but I am prepared to have the swift discussion regarding the highschoolers kneejerk reaction to the word 'nothing' and how can nothing be nothing if you make a word for it that means its not nothing mannnn, for all you physicsts that hate philosophy you sure give undeniable reasons for it's nessecity in your field
No you can't.
When a photon is generated, it is either roughly like:
V
Or
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
Or
O
Or
.
Or
*~~*~~*~~*~~
Or
-------------
Or
****************
Or
~~~~~~~
Or
()
Or
••••••••
Or
}}}}}}}}}
Or more similar to some other way, if you don't know you don't know, but you don't think you are anywhere near the most knowing person in the world on the subject do you
you can't describe this thing with one frequency. you can't apply E=hf.
So in regards to a purely single photon; does it have a frequency?
Or only wave length and energy level and energy level is different than the idea of frequency?
>So in regards to a purely single photon; does it have a frequency?
The only thing that has a frequency is an infinite sinusoid. Everything else has multiple frequencies. Photons don't exist.
Yeah, but you have to imagine those as 4d shapes
Yeah of course, and thats because "it is ezz dammit" trust me bro, source: me
I'm a bottom-quark myself
First off this is a drawing and not an actual result. In the real experiment there is a small but relatively negligible gradient between the two dots.
Second off, no there isn't a spectrum in polarity's absolute sense, but there is also no such thing as a binary field. There objectively is a space between poles and the field 100% has a form in that space.
My intuition is that an experiment like this won't prove the binary nature of some attribute. As it could just be a positive feedback loop. The particle gets attracted to the magnet by some (slight) amount, thus gets closer to it, which in turn increases the attraction. So effectively all should land at some maximum deviation from their original path.
What did that one Michael Crichton book about time-travel say Stern-Gerlach proved? Alternate universes?
OP here. just wanted to say that i was hoping that this thread would be successful by encouraging positive discussion about how real science lends a firm support to clear objective thinking about binaries that undeniably exist like spin and true/false and fact/fantasy. unfortunately it has failed because all i see here is a lot of seethe/cope and pseud paychobabble.
please continue though. it’s interesting to see how zoomers deal with objective scientific realities that don’t align with their personal fancies
Schizo thread right from the OP post
What the frick is electron spin? The pic just shows negatively charged electron and positively charged positron? doesnt it?
No, electrons just... spin. It's not really in a direction as such, or else you'd get lots of different dots. You can't change spin either, it's not like a basketball. There's no classical analog.
? this just shows theres 2 type electrons, one attracted to north pole and second to south? might aswell be positron
this is literally positive/negative charge analogy but to magnetic field
Positrons would annihilate when they hit the screen, since they're antimatter. Electrons all have the same charge. Some of them just spin up and some down.
Not nessecarilly;. Think about lanes on a highway, 2 lanes ; but in this beam example it's probably more like 1000 lane highway;
A medium approaches (the middle of the north and south pole of the field)
Electrons they are in the left lane are forced left, right lane forced to exit right (in the picture, up and down)
They are forced towards the center of the field, and this forcing causes the upper an lower of the beam to repulse away
>and this forcing causes the upper an lower of the beam to repulse away
So does this work without any magnet then? If it's just electrons repelling eachother
I don't know havent done the experiment, likely depends on the nozzle of the beam
A photon only refers to a quantity of EM radiation energy momentarily possesed by an electron in an atom?
Like if you are are swimming in a pond that someone threw a rock in to make ripples, and you open your mouth and capture some of the ripple;
You can't capture the whole wave ripple in your mouth, so of course you can only capture particular quanta of wave ripple energy,
You then spit it out and propagate your own wave ripples from your emition of mouth water
I'm here to once again remind you that this is a schizo thread.
What better example of Schizophrenia is there than Natures Reality
I'm back to point out that this poster is especially schizophrenic
And I am to declare that this poster is no where near even being partially schizophrenic enough to non trivially understand Nature
You will never be scientists, schizos
all major scientist were neurodivergent
Spoken like a true schizo
With all the numbers and equations and terms and names and perspectives and scales nature forces scientests to be schizo if they want to know
Here is a collection of some of the questions I have asked on this board the past few weeks. Apologies for the duplicate questions and typoes of general sloppiness. Maybe someday I will have the energy and effort and patience to edit it better and add more questions but it is too much for me at this time.
https://pastebin.com/myj0keQ0