So you are just not going to read that part, huh. You are going to insist that a particle has no affect?
You merely want to know if it supports what you already want to support. See what I mean about truth having no value for you? It doesn’t for others either. And that is why TEW will never supersede QM… because nobody really cares any more than you do about what is or isn’t true… even less so. Even if you give them very simple incontrovertible statements, they just want to support your theory or they don’t. Each group is merely waving their flag. Hence I am not looking to gain “supporters”.
Join my religion in faith or you’re rejected?
Related from the religion forum concerning proofs of God;
If you display to an atheist that “2+2=4” incontrovertibly leads to the existence of God, he will merely insist that 2+2=4 is not true.
You can’t verify the indisputable by qualifying it by the disputable.
Is TEW indisputable?
Neither TEW nor QM has an actual explanation of the Double-slit experiment, whereas RM does.
Double-Slit Hypothesis
In the double-slit experiment concerning singularly generated particles, a double-slit screen is positioned between a particle source and a detection screen or device. The screen then displays what is seen as an “interference pattern” revealing the location of where each particle struck the screen after passing through the slits. For more than a century people have been confounded as to exactly why an interference pattern would appear when it seems impossible that any interference could exist.
Using a new theory, dubbed “RM”, I hypothesize that if the inner surface of the double-slit screen were altered to a specific surface shape, particles would no longer create a significant interference pattern, but waves still would. Since a photon is a particlized wave, I suspect that photons would show little difference from their typical interference pattern, as their inherent wave properties would still have predominate effect. If they also stopped showing the interference pattern, it would indicate that photons really are strictly particles.
Note that the inner walls of the screen must be randomized in height such that its greatest height is equal to or greater than the expected largest interference pattern wavelength. All inner walls should have a random surface. It would be good if the display screen was also shaped similarly, but such should not be necessary.
But that experiment will never be done until someone with the equipment actually wants to reveal what they think it might reveal.
You have given a new variation on the double slit experiment, which could be verified. That is definitely Science, because the experiment could be performed.
I believe the interference pattern has appeared for quite large entities like a buckyball, so hopefully the shape of the inner surfaces could be known to enough accuracy to see if the result changes as Rational Methphysics (RM) claims. Would be fascinating to know why the inner surface is the critical factor in causing an interference pattern on the screen.
I hope a PhD student (or a physicist) performs this experiment - it would certainly raise the profile of RM if the RM result is verified. It would certainly contradict TEW if the RM result occurs.
Well done posting the claim about the double slit experiment. That is much more productive than just claiming that RM is incontrovertible and is truth, without giving all the details.
I am noticing a pattern in your line of thought. Many times you have written:
Sounds straight forward. Then I do not accept something about RM, and you complain that:
So if I do not accept RM, then you’re not going to say anything more. Effectively, you want to be communicating with a supporter or you don’t want to talk about RM. I think you really do want an RM supporter.
As for the differences between the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and RM, you wrote:
I still hold that TEW has two methods for point A to affect adjacent point B, because TEW very specifically states that elementary waves and particles are different entities. RM says the particle are made of affectance, but what RM does not say is that elementary waves are made of affectance (or are achieved by Potential-to-Affect). Clearly the magic markers would be a disagreement between TEW and RM, so I think the chances of elementary waves being affectance are pretty low.
My take on RM is that RM claims there are waves, but they are not the same as elementary waves. I think the business about the inner surface in the double slit experiment is an example where the TEW waves and the RM wave are different.
Bill, usually when someone makes such a ridiculous accusation it is because it is something that they are doing themselves so they just assume that others are doing it.
The moderators can tell who is using an alternate persona and you have been told by a moderator that your accusation is false. On top of that, Eugene explained how incredibly intelligent I would have to be just to have such a conversation like this about two unique theories in physics.
But even more than that, just how absolutely stupid do you think I am such that I would spend months generating over 500 posts pretending a conversation when no one is actually following these kinds of threads and at most 3-4 people even bother to read a few of the posts.
I could explain why, but you worship TEW. And TEW says that there would be no difference (as would QM).
I tried to give details.
You do not realize what your participation has actually been and thus you misgauge my responses.
It doesn’t matter why. I merely stated that there is affect. I said nothing about how many affects there can be. An affect is an affect… from whatever.
Totally irrelevant to the question at hand.
RM states merely that if it has affect, it exists. If it has no affect whatsoever, it doesn’t exist.
Are you saying that elemental waves have no affect whatsoever and thus are not existent?
I didn’t ask anything about waves. I asked if those 7 statements were in themselves logically incontrovertible. Those statements said nothing of waves.
Try to realize what you are doing.
Imagine a professor trying to teach a course online concerning the “Theory of Numbers”. At some point while discussing prime numbers, he mentions that if you add 6000 years to 1001 years, you would get 7001 years and then asks if that is a prime number.
A student then objects. He claims that the Bible states that the universe is only 6000 years old and thus the Theory of Numbers is invalid.
The professor tries to explain that numbers have nothing to do with the students interpretation of the Bible. But the student refuses to accept the professors Theory of Numbers because it implies that the universe might be older than 6000 years and is therefore unacceptable.
That is an exact analogy to what you have been doing. If you were that professor, online, would you keep trying to teach that student? Or would you merely say, “oh well. I guess you can’t learn the rest of the course.”
What is the point in trying to discuss a subject with someone who not only misunderstands your statements and questions, but also misunderstands the very book that he worships? That is why I stop trying to explain anything. And that is the only reason. It has nothing to do with supporters. It has to do with irrational conditions in which to attempt teaching a subject.
If your objection is that “2+2” does not equal “4” because some book that you read and misunderstood said otherwise, then what is the point in talking about it?
The Double-slit experiment disproves TEW because TEW would predict a different pattern than the experiments demonstrate. So TEW is not a standard that I can accept to compare the incontrovertible, any more than some random interpretation of the Bible. But in this particular case, TEW and RM don’t even disagree. You merely have it stuck in your mind that they are each saying something that RM isn’t saying and Dr Little probably didn’t mean either.
You keep on complaining that I have my own assumptions about physics, as have you and everyone else. Complaining will not motivate anyone to change assumptions.
I believe there are a lot of people reading these posts. None of them have bothered to reply saying how logical the foundations of RM are. That shows that people are wary of accepting unusual premises before they know the implications down the track. I suggest RM needs to show more of what are the next steps and results before the foundations can be fully accepted. Insisting on acceptance now will either not happen, or someone may fake acceptance.
Your suggested variation of the double slit experiment is a step forward. If you explain why the inner surface makes the difference, it will give at least one reason to accept Rational Metaphysics (RM) as a whole. Someone performing the experiment and getting the RM results would be very impressive. More examples like this are they key to changing assumptions in readers.
For the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), waves start from each point on the screen and spread out and pass through both slits and head towards the source, where they interfere. Thanks to the magic markers, waves from different points ignore each other, and only interfere with waves from the same point on the screen. The more constructive the interference, the more likely a particle is created at the source and return backwards along the stimulating elementary wave back to the point on the screen where the wave started. An interference pattern builds, even if only one particle is sent from the source at a time.
The inner surfaces are not a factor, so this is a chance to show a key difference between RM and TEW (and quantum mechanics). It’s a great opportunity for you to teach a new idea, and I’m surprised you’re not taking it.
It did with me. I stopped making them. I developed RM void of them. You don’t see that because you want to see TEW as an incontrovertible standard with which to judge every statement. So you are carrying your assumptions into RM. You are only seeing your own assumptions, not mine. Then based upon your assumptions, you declare that my statements must be merely assumptions. They are simple statements not requiring much thought to see that they have to be true regardless of any other theory. You are not only making your assumptions with TEW, but also assuming that I am assuming with RM. The Bible mentions “take off your sandals”, meaning to remove your own under-standing/assumptions (your sandals) so that you can see the real Truth, “God”.
They haven’t been commenting on RM or TEW… because they aren’t there. And you don’t build a house from the top down.
I already explained it some time ago. Now I am explaining why such explanations aren’t registering. If during such explanations, I present anything contrary to what they have already assumed (such as TEW) they declare the concept invalid… without verifying it. They want to decide whether it is true before they verify if it is true, just as you are doing right now.
I also explained that such a theory does not produce the interference pattern that they report (neither would the QM explanation). The pattern that such a theory would predict would be a circular pattern, not columns. I showed you the diagrams as to why. For a brief moment, you saw the truth of that. But you want to support TEW, whether it is true or not.
It is only “a great opportunity” if someone is actually listening rather than trying to prejudge.
Your explanation of how people typically behave, “people are wary of accepting unusual premises before they know the implications” is well known (prejudice, pre-judgment) and is the reason why trying to explain anything to someone who has already chosen a flag to wave is a bit pointless. And it is why Man makes so little progress and is always at odds with himself. Every error made for 10,000 years has been born from presumption, acting on assumptions without considering all of what he already knew.
When I ask specific questions, you don’t answer them;
…And that gives me the distinct impression that either you are actually reading the posts, or that you simply choose to ignore anything that isn’t TEW approved, even if it isn’t actually contrary to TEW. I asked about 7 statements. You have failed to point out which, if any, are actually disputable. Instead you complain about something that wasn’t even said.
But enough about RM and why I do not continue talking merely to myself on the subject.
TEW demands a specific result concerning the double-slit experiment. It doesn’t get the result that it proposes to predict (according to the explanation that you have given). Why don’t they see the circular pattern that TEW would predict?
Everyone thinks their own assumptions and logic are sound. We are not going to get anywhere merely telling someone else to change their position to ours. An actual result as predicted by Rational Metaphysics in the variation of the double list would be a very powerful reason.
The results of the double slit experiment are predicted by the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) just as well as for quantum mechanics (qm). I am not convinced that the pattern should be circular as you suggest. The reason we get vertical lines is that the slits are in vertical lines.
All points on the screen emit elementary waves, which can pass through both slits and head towards the source. The geometry of the position of the point on the screen and the slits decides how strong the interference. The interference is only with waves from the same point. If the interference is constructive, the higher the chance of the source sending a particle. The particle follows the elementary wave that stimulated it back to the position on the screen. The particle passes through just one slit and it doesn’t matter which one.
What counts is constructive interference of elementary waves arriving at the source - if there, then it stimulates the source to send a particle. The points in the pattern we see are places where this constructive interference of waves from one point is maximised.
You argument about a circular pattern doesn’t hold because different points on the circle will have a different chance of constructive interference. Only parts of the circle will have the right position, and those parts are on or near the lines we see.
This will take a lot of diagrams if we are to go into it further. I don’t have time to prepare the diagrams right now. I was not convinced by your diagrams last time we looked at this.
No. Neither proposes the results obtained.
The vertical slits are what ensure that columns would not appear if either theory was correct. I already explained (twice) why that is the case. I take it that you have forgotten.
That would only work to produce the pattern seen if only a planar view of the setup is examined. In 3 dimensions (the actual experiment) that theory must produce a circular pattern, not columns.
I guess that I need to explain it yet a third time.
And yet you agreed at the time. Again, this changing of position from pro to con in midstream makes it pointless to try to build an entire ontological theory, RM.
The diagrams were as follows;
Those represent the two concerns involved, “Out of Phase” and “Peak of Wave”.
Both show that when examining a lower portion of the screen, the phasing and/or peaking would necessarily be shifted from an area above. And the actual picture that would be produced would end up being a series of concentric circles.
In those pics, the numbers represent distances wherein each integer paired number would be in phase or at highest peak whereas a non-integer paired number represents an out of phase or none peak issue. The numbers 99,100, and 101 could be paired and all in phase. But the numbers 101 and 101.5 would be out of phase and thus yield a darkened area on the screen.
Due to continued explanation, I think the first pictorial is not the one with which Dr Little was concerned. But it shows the single column. Since phasing is probably his only concern, that pictorial would maintain coherent phasing as you looked further down that one column. So that one would be no problem. The problem comes into play due to having more than one centered column.
But the second pic displays the distances involved as you shift over and also go down. Note that one leg (in red, 101) gains an integer value and the other (also red, 101.5) gains a non-integer value, both merely due to the distances involved. That indicates that the red path would be out of phase even though it is on a column below a point that was in phase. A dark spot would have to be at that location. The issue is entirely one of geometry. You don’t have to have the equipment in order to measure these distances. You could physically build a large scale model and simply measure it.
This indicates that if you are depending on phasing as both TEW and QM do, the experiment proves that both theories cannot be correct.
Phasing is definitely the issue here with the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) in the double slit experiment.
In the first diagram, I think we agree there is no problem with the column shown.
In the second diagram, the blue pairing of 101 and 100 is clearly in phase and hence likely to get a particle. On a second look, I see that the figures for the red pairing of 101.5 and 101 are the issue. How did you arrive at those numbers? Why not 101.5, 100.5? I think you have chosen numbers that suit your case here. I do not accept those second numbers are a necessary conclusion.
Proving which numbers apply is tricky here. I will think about that a little.
Also, I do not accept the jump to the conclusion that a circular pattern to achieve the phasing. The second diagram gives figure that are trying to disprove the columns, but does not establish the circular pattern. There is a lot more geometry to discuss to resolve this.
Good, because I really didn’t want to have to keep track of both concerns.
Of course I chose the numbers to suit my case. My case is what I am trying to show.
The point is that as you travel down column #1 the blue 101 gradually increases, going through all greater numbers from 101 up as far as you want to go. But for the column to have an even distribution of strikes, the phase at each point along the column must be identical. And as you can see, I can easily find one where the phasing would not be equal. In fact, upon further calculating, it turns out that the phasing would actually never equal out again. I was thinking that at certain points it would become in phase again, but it actually doesn’t.
Realize that a prerequisite for a collegiate RM course is tensor analysis and a prerequesite for tensor analysis is analytic geometry which includes 3D geometry. I have been quite firmly avoiding the mathematics involved in RM, but in TEW and QM, I don’t think I can do that because they depend upon specific measurements rather than direct logic. And in fact, it seems that they both sacrifice the logic so as to justify the measurements.
What are called “Hidden Variables” is the issue behind this game of explaining what is actually going on. When you first mentioned this experiment, I told you then that there is WAY too much concerning the experiments that is simply not mentioned. Thus analyzing the whole thing can get tough because you don’t know what all they are actually doing and not doing.
Most, if not all, explanations of the double-slit experiment only talk about a single plane as shown below;
But the real experiment involves 3 dimensions;
In the QM theory, the 3D concerns are minimal. But in TEW, they are critical.
For sake of simplicity let’s assume that we are using a fixed laser for our source. Such is probably the most common and provides for certain fixed variables such as a fixed length from the sourced peak wave and the screen as well as coherent following waves. This removes the concern of overlapping random waves.
Using the math, you can set the wavelength as an integer = 1 just to make it easier to work with. In the double slit situation, you have 2 legs, either two red or two blue, that must both have an integer length in order to be in phase with each other. The issue being displayed in the pics is that if they are in phase at one point, they cannot be in phase at another point where they are supposed to be.
In the planar example, any length L (the green lines) must be increased by an integer value for both blue lines/legs as pnt D is taken further away from pnt C. If only one of the two legs is an integer when the green is accurately in phase, the blue cannot be in phase. As the distance between points C and D increase, both blue legs increase, but at different rates.
Originally, I was accepting that they probably both become integers from time to time and thus provide the needed interference pattern. But after actually doing the math, I discovered that in fact, the blue lines will never both be an integer beyond the point where pnt D was directly in line with pnt C.
So that sheds a new and even more condemning light on TEW. It seems that TEW is saying that the phasing must be aligned in order for the screen to show where a photon or particle strikes. But in reality, if that was the case in the planar view, the only points that would show up would be two dots directly in front of the slits.
I had prepared to discuss the 3D concerns involving that integer issue (the second pic and more to come), but as you mentioned, this can get really complicated. So let’s handle this one issue at a time.
Do the math concerning that planar view and see if you can ever find an L+n and L+m for any L and n & m being integers such that it fits the geometry. I could probably go through a mathematical proof that would indicate that such a combination would never occur, but… I’m not going to.
The 3D concerns get even more complex and condemning.
Yeah, no kidding. Each time I tried that, I had to start over. But of course it depends on exactly who is starting. The first step to anywhere begins from wherever you are.
A recent post might be the best place to start now…
And a serious issue concerning the whole affair, here… The Equation for Space. But the discussion on that more social philosophical issue really belongs on that thread, although they get intertwined quite easily.
It took me a while to see it - the lines on the interference pattern make complete sense.
The easiest way to see it is to start with your diagram “Out of Phase Concern” from yesterday:
We start with point Y1, which we both agree for arguments sake has a single wavelength difference in the path Y1-SlitA-Source compared to Y1-SlitB-Source. The actual numbers 101, 100 do not matter - it’s the difference in length that matters (a whole wavelength).
Let’s move vertically down to point Y2. Point Y2 has the same horizontal journey to the Source as point Y1. Point Y2 has a greater vertical distance to travel. The journeys Y2-SlitA-Source and Y2-SlitB-Source have the same horizontal and the same extra vertical distance to travel. So the two journeys for Y2 still have a difference of a whole wavelength.
This shows that all points on the line Y1 Y2 have journeys that are one wavelength different - so this is a line on the interference pattern.
So the lines in the interference pattern completely agree with the prediction of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). The lines also agree with quantum mechanics (qm). The only difference between TEW and qm is that for TEW the waves go from the screen to the source, whereas in qm they go from the source to the screen. The phase difference is the same in either direction.
It is an excellent example of Reciprocity theorem - that the wave works equally well in either direction between two points, no matter what obstacles are in between the two points. This is the reason why TEW has the same predictive success as qm - TEW has the same probability maths as qm with only the direction of the wave being different. Some people argue that if TEW has the same maths then it must be the same theory as qm. The difference in wave direction makes TEW a completely different theory - TEW is local and deterministic, whereas qm is full of non-locality and effects backwards in time and so on. To remove all that craziness from qm, all you need to do is reverse the wave direction. That’s the entire TEW revolution.
You have done a big snow job James, to try and convince everyone there is a problem for TEW and qm with the lines on the interference pattern. Throwing in all the equations was a great move to scare off philosophers, who usually run away and hide at the first sign of maths. I think philosophers will be able to see that there is no problem here.
A) You didn’t read my post closely enough
B) You didn’t answer the question that I last asked.
I was going to get to the issue that you have now brought up, but I found a more serious question to get answered first. As to this new question, the distance downward that the red lines take in order to get to the slits does not compensate sufficiently.
I had prepared the following pics in order to discuss that issue;
You still have the same problem. Do the math.
I’m afraid there is far more different concerning QM. The 3D effect isn’t really the issue in QM as they presume that no particles or photons actually travel vertically. TEW can’t deny the vertical paths because it proposes that the particles are following a wave path from the screen and the screen has no reason to avoid vertical going waves.
I think that you are doing one on yourself by not looking close enough at the details before trying to conclude opinion.
You have completely misapplied the formula for d squared to the two diagrams in your last post.
The formula for d squared is fine. What you didn’t highlight is that the x, y and z reference frame must have the axes perpendicular to each other. In both diagrams, the x, y and z are BD, AB and CD. AB and CD are definitely perpendicular to each other. BD is not perpendicular to the other two and so the calculations are completely invalid.
Hopefully when you write up Rational Metaphysics (RM) you won’t be using calculations like that.
I realise that I only gave an intuitive answer to why the lines on the double slit fringe pattern are valid for the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and quantum mechanics (qm). I will look around for a more formal mathematical proof. Since TEW and qm agree on the details of the lines, there should be good treatments on the net somewhere.
Actually I applied it properly, I just stated it wrong on the pictorial… I got in too much of a rush.
On the pictorial, it should read “BC” rather than “BD”.
But the red equation is already correct. In that equation, I actually used BC as the value “4.0”.
So nothing has changed. I just need to fix the pic.
And now, I have edited the Pics.
Problem is still there of course.
Well I have explained that in some posts, but I see the “potential” problem.
A potential is merely a situation.
When an box is sitting upon a table, it has little potential for falling.
If the table is suddenly removed, that same box has a higher potential for falling.
Electric potential is actually that same thing.
You have “potential energy” and “kinetic energy”
The potential energy is the energy that could be obtained if nothing was stopping it from becoming kinetic… stopping it from moving.
Due to that form of defining concepts, “energy is always conserved” merely because anything that can be obtained is already defined as the “potential” that must already exist for such obtaining.
In RM, “potential” is referring to ANY potential for ANY affect at all.
“Affect” merely means to change.
What gets changed on the most basic level is the potential for change itself, the “PtA”, Potential-to-Affect.
The reasoning for this is simply that such adjacent potentials (situations at each point) cannot be infinitely identical. Because they are not identical, one higher potential to cause affect (to change the potential of an adjacent point) will change the potential of an adjacent lower point and visa-versa.
That is what “begins” the universe of events. I say “begins”, but in reality due to the entire situation always being what I have described, there could never have been a time when such wasn’t the case. Thus the universe never actually “began”. It incontrovertibly had to have always been.
