I disagree. He specifically said, "you might try to come up with many ways of monitoring which photon goes through which slit. But it won’t matter what you do. We have to accept that on a quantum level the uncertainty principle reigns." (a bit paraphrased). Wiki says the same thing, ref Uncertainty Principle.
That alone disables your intelligence that is required to “see truth”.
So of course, you won’t see it in what I say nor anyone else… unless you like them enough to stop hyper-reacting, which in your case is a roller coaster.
Just as you discovered with the idea of VO, STOP worrying so much. Let the truth find you by standing a little more still while watching it. Nothing anyone says can’t be misjudged as being erroneous and most especially by those hyper-defensive of pet issues (else you covertly become somebody else’s drone/servant/slave - unaware).
Again, you are admitting that you were trying to deceive your readers when you placed words in quotation marks to indicate something that was said by Feynman.
So you lie to us and then you blame us for having been lied to.
I think you are hyper-reacting, James. You are the only one in relation to whom I am so unstable. I have invested much in RM and you take it in directions I can’t always interpret as valuable.
Don’t underestimate the patience I have with you just because I see the value in what you get right.
The accumulated value of your posts (to me and what I can estimate in general) is among the highest of all posters on this board. It is due to sheer consistency and depth of this consistency. I do not expect to ever break your cognitive pattern nor do I have any wish to do so as it is clear that your method serves you well and yields much value for me and others. But sometimes you are perceived as being wrong by everyone but yourself, and since this does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, it is egotistical on your part to keep the silence about your calculations.
I know that they can make sense. But paradoxically I also know that what you say about Relativity is wrong.
Whatever you have accomplished, I am sure that it does not contradict Relativity.
Relativity never was an ontology, it’s only an epistemology about being-in-time-space. RM is not - rather, not only that. It is objective so it must pertain to all reference frames at once. I am still curious and still can not find a flaw in relativity other than that it does not claim to construe an objective model of the universe.
Since you are the only person who made sense to me with the Islanders riddle, I am willing to look again and again into this problem with the hope there is an unexpected revelation.
One way in which I can interpret RM is as an interpretation of thermodynamic reality in terms of the speed of light. i.e. the speed of propagation of affect.
I have no good idea how this relates to this problem with the clocks. I am not sure which details I am to investigate.
Perhaps it has to do with the difference between moving directly toward something and moving in an angular way? Just guessing.
One can’t judge an angel by who’s shoulder it is sitting upon.
Examine the possible truth of each thing said, regardless of who is saying it.
Then gather the angels.
Actually I am continuing to put value in your stopped clock project here because it is you, not because I recognize any truth in the particular situation just yet – as it constantly appears as though you’ve understood Relativity in a way it is not meant (as a ontology that models reality as a singular system of coordinates).
What could possibly be true is that it is possible to construe a meta-frame wherein we can examine the relationship of the laws within the frames respect to each other.
I’ll admit I didn’t finish that video; he had to spend about 20 minutes explaining the “bullets from a machine gun” analogy and I determined at that point the rest of what he had to say would be things I’ve already heard before. Can you sum up for me what he said differently compared to, say, this video?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
What are the most fundamental properties you can imagine? Distance comes to mind for me. Distance, being only 1 dimensional, seems like a fairly simple, if not the simplest, property to observe.
But how can you measure the distance between two points without first comparing it to other points? It is only with 3 points that any sort of measurement of distance can begin to be made.
For a long time I’ve associated this “3 point requisite” with quarks, being that there are 3 of them making up a hadron, and to me it always seemed like that if we hypothetically imagined a universe created from a complete void, or “something from nothing”, we’d have to first imagine a point of “something” reciprocating off itself to form another point making a line, which again reciprocates itself to make a triangle. This triangle would still have nothing else relative to it giving it exact properties of distance, so another point would be reciprocated off the triangle. This process would continually repeat itself until some kind of geometric stability is formed and no more reciprocation occurs. Perhaps we could view this as a geometrical visualization of the big bang – and those first 3 points might have been the first hadron. The first two points were positive quarks, and the third point was negative.
This all comes back to the idea that there is no “space” or “distance”; only relations. For a long time, this geometrical process of reciprocation is symmetrical, but it eventually breaks symmetry causing the big bang.
Now, with that visualized, keep something else in mind. Matter/energy is never created/destroyed, it merely changes form. The process mentioned above would have been initiated by a previous universe experiencing heat death, where it had maximum entropy at the end of it’s life cycle, and no more interactions between particles occurred. Since time is only relative, and it can only be measured in terms of interactions, the time until the next interaction occurred in the maximum entropy universe would be instantaneous. Tiny fluctuations in the otherwise evenly spread medium of the heat death universe cause the process of reciprocation to start, and also cause symmetry to break later on.
Feynman merely says “isn’t it fascinating” and “we can never know which slit the electron is going through without affecting the results”. Dr Quantum says, “Ooooo. Ahhhh… magical!” and “merely by us observing, the electron decides to change its behavior… as if it knows that it is being watched.” (both paraphrased)
The double-slit experiment is merely a magic show for the masses.
Relativity and Quantum Physics are both merely magic shows to introduce mysticism and keep the masses in ignorance and awe. They are for the weak minded to keep them weak minded and others dominating over them, the “Overman”.
Okay; that doesn’t change the fact that if you aim a constant beam of photons at a double-slit apparatus, you will get an interference pattern behind it. I’ve seen the experiment conducted before in person.
Let me say something about the double slit experiment, couldn’t it just be a visual illusion caused by particles bouncing off the sides of the each slit?
Say a particle enters the left slit, but it hits the left wall of that slit before passing through the slit. The particle would now be traveling in a different direction on the X left to right axis of the apparatus, and it will hit a different spot on the back wall compared to if it had just passed through the slit. Okay, you’d expect this to form the two bands of intensity on the backwall as opposed to an interference pattern.
But, imagine this: the particle enters the left slit, hits its left wall, but then before leaving the slit it hits its right wall. So the particle is now traveling again in its original direction on the X axis. However, because it has hit the wall of the slit twice, it is much less likely to end up in one of the main two bands on the backwall; instead, its probability changes with each successive time it bounces against the walls of the slit, and its location on the back wall is no longer two bands of intensity but the many bands of the interference pattern.
Why would it bounce multiple times against the walls of the slit? Because the walls of the slit are not perfectly straight and smooth. They consist of particles like everything else does, which do not have straight edges which coalesce with each other, but are 3 dimensional blobs or clouds with curved edges as opposed to straight ones. The particle hits this imperfect wall, and because of the angle it hits it at, it might hit the other wall of the slit before leaving the slit.
That wouldn’t explain the pattern, merely the dispersion. You would have to ask why the electrons (light is a different issue) DON’T land in specific places.
I have my own theory on all of that, but I’m not entirely confident that the single electron experiment really does what they say. And I know that they can discover exactly what is happening pretty easily, yet keep saying that it is a mystery. They want to keep it a mystery.
The red line passes through the double slits without hitting the sides of the slit.
The blue line passes through the double slits and hits one side.
The green line passes through the double slit and hits two sides.
Even with only those 3, the interference pattern starts to become apparent.
Of course, those angles aren’t correct; they’re just roughly drawn to show the effect. And with actual light/electrons/particles, they will bounce against the walls of the slit a lot more than just 1 or 2 times, and will create numerous bands of intensity on the back wall.
It’s also worth noting that in the actual experiment, light will only form a visible interference pattern at just the right distance with just the right size slit.
Now, factor in the walls of the slits not having perfectly straight edges, but instead being composed of many particles which have blob-like, oblong, or rounded edges.
Also, factor in the inability of the device firing the light/particles/electrons to be aimed perfectly straight. It can’t be perfectly straight due to the uncertainty principle.
Also factor in the firing device’s position changing each time it fires a photon/particle/electron (basically, the direction it’s aimed at changes each time it fires, in the same fashion that your shoulder and body move when you fire a gun.) This is again due to the uncertainty principle, since in order for something to send any sort of information, its location will end up being changed in the process.
You are presuming WAY too much.
Each of your lines would really have to be a spread, not merely a single line.
In the single electron version, your first slit isn’t used, only the double-slit wall.
There is always a modest amount of spread pattern (that they don’t show in those videos).
The issue is that the pattern is greatly increased, more than merely two spread patterns overlapping.
So the real issue isn’t about why they spread, but why having another slit causes greater spreading than merely the addition of two slits. By having slit A open, the electrons that go through slit B go even further to the right (for example) than if slit A wasn’t there. So how did an open slit affect an electron going through the other slit?
Assuming that they really get what they imply (dubious), my explanation would concern a subtle harmonic resonance;
But this is the problem: these people have authority because of their interactions with others and their ability to demonstrate that they are correct with others. James prefers it that people simply agree with him for no reason. James hates women and believes that men act like women when they allow themselves to become convinced by things, especially by demonstration of the facts that James has no control over.
