No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Arminius » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:35 am

James S. Saint wrote:I CAN explain the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization.

Would you mind explaining the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:01 am

James S Saint wrote:
Peachy Nietzsche wrote:
James S Saint wrote:That is exactly what "superstition" is.
When something is happening and you can't explain it with your current understanding, you are tempting to just make up magical forces doing magical things. And that is exactly what QP is entirely about.

your current understanding of everything is built off of 'magical forces doing magical things'; microwaves, light-bulbs, pharmaceuticals, etc.. You surely know that those things exist, but you've had to assume processes at play which you can't see.

Obviously you don't know me. :lol:
I CAN explain the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization.

Please explain it to us then

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:
But don't confuse Quantum Mechanics with Quantum Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a statistical study presuming quantization, so that they can use statistical math.

I'm not sure it's entirely 'just statistics'; the results of the double slit experiment has no other explanation to it.


Oh. So if we don't know how life was formed, then the only explanation is that God did it?

You might want to consider what "the only explanation" always entails - "Presumption and Hubris".

I don't even know why that got brought up, I'm just going to ignore that section of your post.

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:If you attribute 'charge' to particles, then you have already accepted quantizing them.

What?!??
...nonsense.

The quantization of particles in physics ascribes numerical values to them like "charge" or "spin" to explain their behavior. If you believe in "charge", you already believe in quantum mechanics.
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby idioticidioms » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:09 am

If you can, don't just say that you can and leave it at that. Don't hold yourself up just to be a showman unless it's unintentional.

the double slit experiment is easily explained: Particles act differently when watched than when not watched, the same as people do. Some would enjoy being watched while others would take offense to it. Certainly we act differently when we feel we're not being watched than when we're around others unless we're truly comfortable in our own skin while being watched or while perceiving that we're being watched.

I dunno why people have to use words such as quantization to explain it. If you want the particles to work as they should, you just have to trust them to do so. When you watch and observe them and try to quantify their movements, then they are bound by that because they're not busy breaking the rules you claim are impossible to break. These particles are not stupid. They know what happens when man sees or hears something he doesn't like and too many magical things have already been destroyed by our species temper tantrums, to the point where they are afraid of showing man their true side while man seems determined to find it even though he knows he's not going to like the uncomfortable questions it raises.

It parallels our own psychology as we seek answers we constantly deny while trying to rationalize that it was never that at all and that the answer must still be out there. Such abject denial only having one possible outcome as everything tries to repress itself for the sake of such immature and ignorant brutes.
User avatar
idioticidioms
Thinker
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:13 am

idioticidioms wrote:the double slit experiment is easily explained: Particles act differently when watched than when not watched, the same as people do. Some would enjoy being watched while others would take offense to it. Certainly we act differently when we feel we're not being watched than when we're around others unless we're truly comfortable in our own skin while being watched or while perceiving that we're being watched.

I dunno why people have to use words such as quantization to explain it. If you want the particles to work as they should, you just have to trust them to do so. When you watch and observe them and try to quantify their movements, then they are bound by that because they're not busy breaking the rules you claim are impossible to break. These particles are not stupid. They know what happens when man sees or hears something he doesn't like and too many magical things have already been destroyed by our species temper tantrums, to the point where they are afraid of showing man their true side while man seems determined to find it even though he knows he's not going to like the uncomfortable questions it raises.

Are you trolling?
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby idioticidioms » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:20 am

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:
idioticidioms wrote:the double slit experiment is easily explained: Particles act differently when watched than when not watched, the same as people do. Some would enjoy being watched while others would take offense to it. Certainly we act differently when we feel we're not being watched than when we're around others unless we're truly comfortable in our own skin while being watched or while perceiving that we're being watched.

I dunno why people have to use words such as quantization to explain it. If you want the particles to work as they should, you just have to trust them to do so. When you watch and observe them and try to quantify their movements, then they are bound by that because they're not busy breaking the rules you claim are impossible to break. These particles are not stupid. They know what happens when man sees or hears something he doesn't like and too many magical things have already been destroyed by our species temper tantrums, to the point where they are afraid of showing man their true side while man seems determined to find it even though he knows he's not going to like the uncomfortable questions it raises.

Are you trolling?


I don't believe so. I'm just applying psychology and religion to math for a better understanding. With that quote in your signature, I figured you would understand:

Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.


You can get into all the technical mumbo-jumbo you assholes have made for it all, all I did was simplify it and make it easier to understand for other people.
User avatar
idioticidioms
Thinker
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:23 am

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:The quantization of particles in physics ascribes numerical values to them like "charge" or "spin" to explain their behavior. If you believe in "charge", you already believe in quantum mechanics.

Oh give me a break. They were testing charge long before they ever even thought of any kind of quantization. It is like saying that America invented Democracy... kids... :icon-rolleyes:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby idioticidioms » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:32 am

I mean, have you even fucking considered that they're self-aware and have their own consciousness, or are you bastards too caught up in the moment of discovery that these particles will get in their own way and certain ones will act just the same as other ones even though being assumed as completely different. Didn't that set off a few Clarion Bells for you guys? Too busy assigning artificial properties to them and making them jump through hoops all so you can diagnose them and figure them out.

Humans are a bunch of dipshits.
User avatar
idioticidioms
Thinker
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:50 am

James S Saint wrote:
Peachy Nietzsche wrote:The quantization of particles in physics ascribes numerical values to them like "charge" or "spin" to explain their behavior. If you believe in "charge", you already believe in quantum mechanics.

Oh give me a break. They were testing charge long before they ever even thought of any kind of quantization. It is like saying that America invented Democracy... kids... :icon-rolleyes:

"quantization" is literally "giving discrete values"; ascribing "charge" to particles is quantization by definition. There is no clear point in history when classical physics became quantum mechanics. Study of electromagnetism just sort of seamlessly merged into what became known as quantum mechanics.
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby idioticidioms » Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:01 pm

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Peachy Nietzsche wrote:The quantization of particles in physics ascribes numerical values to them like "charge" or "spin" to explain their behavior. If you believe in "charge", you already believe in quantum mechanics.

Oh give me a break. They were testing charge long before they ever even thought of any kind of quantization. It is like saying that America invented Democracy... kids... :icon-rolleyes:

"quantization" is literally "giving discrete values"; ascribing "charge" to particles is quantization by definition. There is no clear point in history when classical physics became quantum mechanics. Study of electromagnetism just sort of seamlessly merged into what became known as quantum mechanics.


yeah, I do have to agree on that. Things haven't really changed, we've just learned more about them. It's like how we no longer consider Pluto a planet and zero is a number. We weren't taught those things when I was growing up; pluto was still a planet and zero was never a number. It's hard to reconcile those differences some times.

The fact is that quantization is the constraining of a continuous set of values to a relatively small and discrete set. To give a charge is much the same, you have to move from real numbers to variable integers. These particles act in much the same way.
User avatar
idioticidioms
Thinker
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:33 pm

Alright, here you go you guys, the double slit experiment explained:
As an electron propagates, it is emitting its electromagnetic field which travels at the speed of light. As the electron passes through one of the slits, the electromagnetic field it was emitting before it entered the slit is still propagating away from its point of emission at the speed of light in all directions as a wave, so the electron's electromagnetic field passes through both slits while the electron itself only passes through one. As the electron leaves the slit, it interacts with its own electromagnetic field which it emitted earlier. Hence, the interference pattern.
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:23 pm

"Ascribing a charge" is not quantizing it except as a mere example for an explanation of some relationship. It is giving an estimate of value to something that can never be perfectly precisely measured. They know that the decimal representation of a value is limited to the number of digits that can be recorded and accurately measured. Classical physics is not proposing that a given number is perfectly exact. Although they do propose that relationships between values are perfectly exact (calculus, which wouldn't work in a quantized universe. But it does work in the real universe).

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:As an electron propagates, it is emitting its electromagnetic field which travels at the speed of light.

Right off the bat, electrons don't "emit" charge. They are the result of charge, a center of concentration of the charge field.

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:As the electron passes through one of the slits, the electromagnetic field it was emitting before it entered the slit is still propagating away from its point of emission at the speed of light in all directions as a wave, so the electron's electromagnetic field passes through both slits while the electron itself only passes through one. As the electron leaves the slit, it interacts with its own electromagnetic field which it emitted earlier. Hence, the interference pattern.

There is a problem with that (besides the above mentioned issue).

Each electron would emit only one wave in front of itself (given that it "emits"). It could possibly interact with its own emission, but only once. That would cause that particular electron to shift its course.

The next electron has no idea where the first electron went. Its particular path is slightly different than the first. So when it has the same kind of interaction with its own emitted wave, it takes a still different course.

The question is; since the electrons seem to gather in certain places and avoid others, how do the electrons know where on the screen to gather and where to avoid?


According to Quantum Physics, they consider if they are being watched and choose based on that.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Arminius » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:00 pm

Physicists have been admitting that there are two physical "worlds" for them: (1) the "world of classical physics" and (2) the "world of quantum physics".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:07 pm

Arminius wrote:Physicists have been admitting that there are two physical "worlds" for them: (1) the "world of classical physics" and (2) the "world of quantum physics".

Yes. One is objective and the other is solipsist.

Quantum Physics (and QM) are entirely about mental/mathematical constructs, not physical reality. Their "waves" are merely calculated graphs/equations/functions. The "wave-function collapse" is a collapse of the equation, the function. QM is NOT talking about a physical wave. But QP superstitiously proposes that the equation itself Is the only reality and that is why it collapses when an observer is involved. The equation is only in his head, but then so is all of reality (the double-slit experiment itself). If he isn't observing, he can't put in the extra information, thus the equation (in his head) doesn't collapse. It is a con game of the mind, not Science at all.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:18 pm

James S Saint wrote:"Ascribing a charge" is not quantizing it except as a mere example for an explanation of some relationship. It is giving an estimate of value to something that can never be perfectly precisely measured. They know that the decimal representation of a value is limited to the number of digits that can be recorded and accurately measured. Classical physics is not proposing that a given number is perfectly exact. Although they do propose that relationships between values are perfectly exact (calculus, which wouldn't work in a quantized universe. But it does work in the real universe).

Before particles had a charge, everything was assumed to have a north and a south. Finding that a particle can be positive or negative was perhaps the first time a particle had been quantized. However crude their physical representations of the particles (they obviously didn't know the true shapes of electron orbitals), they still had the rote pattern of electrons 'shells' figured out.
Peachy Nietzsche wrote:As an electron propagates, it is emitting its electromagnetic field which travels at the speed of light.

Right off the bat, electrons don't "emit" charge. They are the result of charge, a center of concentration of the charge field.

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:As the electron passes through one of the slits, the electromagnetic field it was emitting before it entered the slit is still propagating away from its point of emission at the speed of light in all directions as a wave, so the electron's electromagnetic field passes through both slits while the electron itself only passes through one. As the electron leaves the slit, it interacts with its own electromagnetic field which it emitted earlier. Hence, the interference pattern.

There is a problem with that (besides the above mentioned issue).

Each electron would emit only one wave in front of itself (given that it "emits"). It could possibly interact with its own emission, but only once. That would cause that particular electron to shift its course

Why do you think they only emit one wave? They are emitting a field constantly. Otherwise you are assuming action at a distance for two particles to be able to interact without having emitted a constant field.

You can completely dump the whole "particles aware that they're being watched" notion in my opinion. There is however such thing as an 'observer effect', and that's because the act of observation is mediated by a force carrier, implying that whatever you are observing had to have moved in the act of being observed.
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:28 pm

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:
James S Saint wrote:"Ascribing a charge" is not quantizing it except as a mere example for an explanation of some relationship. It is giving an estimate of value to something that can never be perfectly precisely measured. They know that the decimal representation of a value is limited to the number of digits that can be recorded and accurately measured. Classical physics is not proposing that a given number is perfectly exact. Although they do propose that relationships between values are perfectly exact (calculus, which wouldn't work in a quantized universe. But it does work in the real universe).

Before particles had a charge, everything was assumed to have a north and a south. Finding that a particle can be positive or negative was perhaps the first time a particle had been quantized. However crude their physical representations of the particles (they obviously didn't know the true shapes of electron orbitals), they still had the rote pattern of electrons 'shells' figured out.

You have no idea at all of what you are talking about concerning that entire issue.

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Peachy Nietzsche wrote:As an electron propagates, it is emitting its electromagnetic field which travels at the speed of light.

Right off the bat, electrons don't "emit" charge. They are the result of charge, a center of concentration of the charge field.

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:As the electron passes through one of the slits, the electromagnetic field it was emitting before it entered the slit is still propagating away from its point of emission at the speed of light in all directions as a wave, so the electron's electromagnetic field passes through both slits while the electron itself only passes through one. As the electron leaves the slit, it interacts with its own electromagnetic field which it emitted earlier. Hence, the interference pattern.

There is a problem with that (besides the above mentioned issue).

Each electron would emit only one wave in front of itself (given that it "emits"). It could possibly interact with its own emission, but only once. That would cause that particular electron to shift its course

Why do you think they only emit one wave? They are emitting a field constantly. Otherwise you are assuming action at a distance for two particles to be able to interact without having emitted a constant field.

The only wave that can occur by the electron traveling is the wave that proceeds in front of the electron. The electron takes one vector and thus would produce only one "wave-front" with which to interact.

But regardless the question remains;
James S Saint wrote:The question is; since the electrons seem to gather in certain places and avoid others, how do the electrons know where on the screen to gather and where to avoid?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:25 pm

I'm replying from a phone so it's very difficult to manage embedded quotes, but in response to James:
1. How don't I
2. How does the second part of your post explain why there wouldn't be an interference pattern?
These electrons are being fired at about 40% the speed of light from what I've read, that's fast enough to meet its own electromagnetic field in certain circumstances under the right conditions
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:14 am

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:I'm replying from a phone so it's very difficult to manage embedded quotes, but in response to James:
1. How don't I
2. How does the second part of your post explain why there wouldn't be an interference pattern?
These electrons are being fired at about 40% the speed of light from what I've read, that's fast enough to meet its own electromagnetic field in certain circumstances under the right conditions

For a pattern to form, there has to be a reason for all electrons to avoid particular regions on the screen, regardless of the initial angle they entered the slots.

Image
Last edited by James S Saint on Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:34 am

James S Saint wrote:
Peachy Nietzsche wrote:I'm replying from a phone so it's very difficult to manage embedded quotes, but in response to James:
1. How don't I
2. How does the second part of your post explain why there wouldn't be an interference pattern?
These electrons are being fired at about 40% the speed of light from what I've read, that's fast enough to meet its own electromagnetic field in certain circumstances under the right conditions

For a pattern to form, there has to be a reason for all electrons to avoid particular regions on the screen, regardless of the initial angle they entered the slots.

It's just the geometrical pattern formed when two (or more) waves meet; the same pattern can be seen in waves of water or waves of anything.

The electron could be anywhere in its electromagnetic field; does that make sense? It's still sort of 'just making sense to me' (and I first heard about it years ago). It has made sense to me before in the past, but then I either forget it (since it's counter-intuitive) or doubt it and try to re-think it through. Reading this today helped as it describes an actual test of the experiment (instead of just being a thought experiment): http://www.hitachi.com/rd/portal/research/em/doubleslit.html
Last edited by Peachy Nietzsche on Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:40 am

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Peachy Nietzsche wrote:I'm replying from a phone so it's very difficult to manage embedded quotes, but in response to James:
1. How don't I
2. How does the second part of your post explain why there wouldn't be an interference pattern?
These electrons are being fired at about 40% the speed of light from what I've read, that's fast enough to meet its own electromagnetic field in certain circumstances under the right conditions

For a pattern to form, there has to be a reason for all electrons to avoid particular regions on the screen, regardless of the initial angle they entered the slots.

It's just the geometrical pattern formed when two (or more) waves meet; the same pattern can be seen in waves of water or waves of anything

One electron at a time (allowing for two "wave-fronts") doesn't form a pattern (by the theory you are suggesting).
Image

Each new electron takes a different path and thus has a different interference.

..not to mention that an electron isn't a wave.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:44 am

James S Saint wrote:
Peachy Nietzsche wrote:
James S Saint wrote:For a pattern to form, there has to be a reason for all electrons to avoid particular regions on the screen, regardless of the initial angle they entered the slots.

It's just the geometrical pattern formed when two (or more) waves meet; the same pattern can be seen in waves of water or waves of anything

One electron at a time (allowing for two "wave-fronts") doesn't form a pattern (by the theory you are suggesting).
Image

Each new electron takes a different path and thus has a different interference.


It's not dependent on the path of the electron, it's dependent on the size of the slits and distance the slits are away from the detector.

Image
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:48 am

I actually got to see the double-slit experiment performed in a class in high school; although it was done with a laser (not an electron microscope). The slit itself is actually incredibly small, and if I remember it took quite a bit of monkeying around with aiming everything just right to get the interference pattern.
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jul 19, 2014 7:59 am

Peachy Nietzsche wrote:I actually got to see the double-slit experiment performed in a class in high school; although it was done with a laser (not an electron microscope). The slit itself is actually incredibly small, and if I remember it took quite a bit of monkeying around with aiming everything just right to get the interference pattern.

A laser is an actual wave and continuous, thus a pattern is easily formed, just as expected, just like water waves. But single electrons is an entirely different issue. They happen to show a similar pattern, but the cause is entirely different. Currently QP proclaims that the cause can never be known. The best they have come up with is to presume that particles ARE waves (so as to make the wave theory work for particles). The problem with that is that particles are NOT waves, except to the Quantum Magi and even if they were, single wavefronts (not being continuous) wouldn't make a pattern anyway.

Science is merely their religion, making excuses for their theories. They are Theists.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Sat Aug 02, 2014 7:57 pm

idioticidioms wrote:I mean, have you even fucking considered that they're self-aware and have their own consciousness, or are you bastards too caught up in the moment of discovery that these particles will get in their own way and certain ones will act just the same as other ones even though being assumed as completely different. Didn't that set off a few Clarion Bells for you guys? Too busy assigning artificial properties to them and making them jump through hoops all so you can diagnose them and figure them out.

Humans are a bunch of dipshits.

Although I don't think they have a consciousness or whatever, what I think you were actually trying to get at initially (before you decided to start rambling emotionally instead) was your concerns regarding unforeseen consequences with particle accelerators and the like - which is a concern I share.

We simply do not know what is beyond these particles we are tampering with. There is nothing for us to compare it to, it is entirely new territory. And all of the theories in physics we depend on to tell us that what we're doing is safe and won't accidentally suck the planet into a black hole are only theoretical - they're assumptions built off of assumptions built off of assumptions, built off of assumptions; and in order to verify those assumptions, we use another body of assumptions.

Does the same type of particle annihilation occurring in a collider ever occur in nature? Suppose the Higg's boson is self-perpetuating and could cause a cascade of mass-creation? We are talking about a particle proposed to play a role in the primordial mechanics responsible for space, time, matter, and energy themselves - the creation of the very fabric and laws of existence. With those kinds of mechanisms at play, how can we at all convince ourselves that what we are doing is safe?

To claim that what physicists are dabbling in is "safe" would imply that they already know the bounds and limitations of what they are working with -- even though unknown bounds and limitations are precisely what they are trying to look for!
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:13 pm

The existence of "dark energy" and "dark matter" that physicists have to assume (in order for many of their equations to make sense) can only mean in my opinion that there are still more subatomic particles and possibly even more subatomic forces we haven't discovered yet.

Basically I think saying there is 'dark energy and dark matter' is just a way for physicists to bundle together everything they haven't accounted for yet. It's like the ultimate "we don't know"; it's just a convenient placeholder.
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Peachy Nietzsche » Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:33 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Peachy Nietzsche wrote:I actually got to see the double-slit experiment performed in a class in high school; although it was done with a laser (not an electron microscope). The slit itself is actually incredibly small, and if I remember it took quite a bit of monkeying around with aiming everything just right to get the interference pattern.

A laser is an actual wave and continuous, thus a pattern is easily formed, just as expected, just like water waves. But single electrons is an entirely different issue. They happen to show a similar pattern, but the cause is entirely different. Currently QP proclaims that the cause can never be known. The best they have come up with is to presume that particles ARE waves (so as to make the wave theory work for particles). The problem with that is that particles are NOT waves, except to the Quantum Magi and even if they were, single wavefronts (not being continuous) wouldn't make a pattern anyway.

Science is merely their religion, making excuses for their theories. They are Theists.

An electron's electromagnetic field is a wave as well.
The electron itself isn't actually bumping into the walls of the slits, it's electromagnetic field is.
In a very rough sense, the 'point particle electron' is told where to go by its electromagnetic field.
The influence of this electromagnetic field propagates out as a wave; thus, when we fire an electron at high speeds (fast enough to make a trip around the earth something like 10 times in a single second, to put it in perspective) at a double slit apparatus, this wave interferes with itself causing the electron to hit the back wall in locations we'd expect from an interference pattern produced by multiple waves.

I remember making sense of all this years and years ago, but for some reason like a year or two ago I shed doubt on what I knew and started trying to think of it in different ways.
There's really no other way to think about it though..

Also, you said earlier that an electron doesn't 'emit' its electromagnetic field; do you think that it 'is' its electromagnetic field? I view subatomic particles like electrons as point-particles, and their wave-like properties are the result of forces.
The big problem with thinking that a particle such as an electron 'is' the wave of the electromagnetic field is that the negative charge throughout the electron cloud should repel other parts of the electron cloud causing it to disperse.
Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.
Metacognition - 'Thinking about thinking'; attaining an understanding of one's own mental processes by means of introspection.
User avatar
Peachy Nietzsche
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am
Location: מִיכָאֵל

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]