Return Home
It is currently Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:26 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:45 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:40 am
Posts: 51
Hello, I didn't see any topics about Tom's proposed experiments in the forum, so I created this one.
I found all of them very clever, but I have a question about the "miracles" ones - 1c2 and 5.
How Tom knows it is possible to place the interference and the single slit patterns so they do not overlap?
I've read a lot of DQCE and doble slit papers. I don't think the way Tom explains these experiments in his lectures is how acctually the experiment is done (he uses a way similar to Dr. Quantum's video), wich is fine for non physicists to understand, but does not reflect the real methods and results.
So, did he have any help of a experimental physicist to design those experiments?

Thanks.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 7:18 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Quote:
I don't think the way Tom explains these experiments in his lectures is how acctually the experiment is done (he uses a way similar to Dr. Quantum's video), wich is fine for non physicists to understand, but does not reflect the real methods and results.
How is that?

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:49 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6169
Location: Ocala, FL
Tom spent a lot of time at the LA event explaining the experiments. Watch those for more information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCjSK2T-bY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZUqtxdT0QY&t=2002s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T61tldISriA


Top
PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:14 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:40 am
Posts: 51
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think the way Tom explains these experiments in his lectures is how acctually the experiment is done (he uses a way similar to Dr. Quantum's video), wich is fine for non physicists to understand, but does not reflect the real methods and results.
How is that?
This is how a real interference and single slit look like:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _slit2.jpg
So, I don't see how to not overlap the single slit with the interference pattern.

Another thing, I don't remember seen any double slit experience with a detector at the slit. They usually close one of the slits to produce the single slit pattern, and leave both open to produce the interference. If there is any experiment setup similar to the 1c2 in the litterature I would like the reference.
Quote:
Tom spent a lot of time at the LA event explaining the experiments. Watch those for more information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCjSK2T-bY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZUqtxdT0QY&t=2002s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T61tldISriA
Yes, this is where I watched the proposed experiments. Very nice presentation.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:01 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Quote:
This is how a real interference and single slit look like:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _slit2.jpg
So, I don't see how to not overlap the single slit with the interference pattern.
A few things here. Of course Tom is drawing a cartoon to better illustrate his point. But that wikipedia picture is misleading. It seems to imply that a single slit pattern is just a double slit pattern with no destructive areas. Not true. Say that top pattern is from the right slit, then it would only be incident on the right half of the screen (right side of the diffraction pattern) in a real experiment. A better picture is this: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JEkJby1LNUA/ ... eSlit2.gif

You are right, the photons never land in a perfect single spot behind even a single slit. There is single slit diffraction as well, but it is more localized and less spread out than a double slit diffraction pattern. And yes there can be much overlap. Take the setup in my photo. The single slit patterns overlap in the middle a bit, so that one photon arriving there could have come from either slit. But as Tom says, it is possible to manipulate the slits and screen spacing such that the separation between single slit patterns is maximized as well as the separation between single slit patterns and the double slit pattern. But there will always be some overlap, and I think Tom does state this. He also states that his algorithm does not have to predict with 100% accuracy. Only 80% or something? Enough to prove that the random process is not behaving randomly. This is in fact how all quantum experimental results are calculated. You often hear about "fringe visibility of xx%" and so on. It is a statistical science and there is never a perfect result.
Quote:
Another thing, I don't remember seen any double slit experience with a detector at the slit. They usually close one of the slits to produce the single slit pattern, and leave both open to produce the interference. If there is any experiment setup similar to the 1c2 in the litterature I would like the reference.
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0106078

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:19 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:40 am
Posts: 51
Quote:
Quote:
This is how a real interference and single slit look like:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _slit2.jpg
So, I don't see how to not overlap the single slit with the interference pattern.
A few things here. Of course Tom is drawing a cartoon to better illustrate his point. But that wikipedia picture is misleading. It seems to imply that a single slit pattern is just a double slit pattern with no destructive areas. Not true. Say that top pattern is from the right slit, then it would only be incident on the right half of the screen (right side of the diffraction pattern) in a real experiment. A better picture is this: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JEkJby1LNUA/ ... eSlit2.gif

You are right, the photons never land in a perfect single spot behind even a single slit. There is single slit diffraction as well, but it is more localized and less spread out than a double slit diffraction pattern. And yes there can be much overlap. Take the setup in my photo. The single slit patterns overlap in the middle a bit, so that one photon arriving there could have come from either slit. But as Tom says, it is possible to manipulate the slits and screen spacing such that the separation between single slit patterns is maximized as well as the separation between single slit patterns and the double slit pattern. But there will always be some overlap, and I think Tom does state this. He also states that his algorithm does not have to predict with 100% accuracy. Only 80% or something? Enough to prove that the random process is not behaving randomly. This is in fact how all quantum experimental results are calculated. You often hear about "fringe visibility of xx%" and so on. It is a statistical science and there is never a perfect result.
Quote:
Another thing, I don't remember seen any double slit experience with a detector at the slit. They usually close one of the slits to produce the single slit pattern, and leave both open to produce the interference. If there is any experiment setup similar to the 1c2 in the litterature I would like the reference.
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0106078
I really hope we can setup a experiment without much overlap. We need at least >50% prediction with statistical significance to achive a good result.

I don't think this paper you provided is similar to the setup of Tom's experiment 1c. It uses entangled photons and polarizers. The polarizer doesn't detect the photon at the slit, it only "marks" it, so in theory you can measure its polarizarion later and learn the wich way info.

Do you know any paper that has a similar setup as the one below? Where you can detect the particle passing through the slit? This would be ideal.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img923/1782/mKxTOR.jpg

I am not a physicist, but I have been reading a lot about QM after I watched Tom's lectures. I really want those experiments to work!
Thanks.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 7:20 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Quote:

I don't think this paper you provided is similar to the setup of Tom's experiment 1c. It uses entangled photons and polarizers. The polarizer doesn't detect the photon at the slit, it only "marks" it, so in theory you can measure its polarizarion later and learn the wich way info.

A detector is anything that interacts with or changes the particles. There is no Detector, TM of one kind only that is used in every experiment. The key in any experiment is which path information. They demonstrate that the quarter wave plates at the slits act as which path detectors by destroying interference. When in place they cause the photon to only travel through one slit (wave function collapse). That's what detectors are supposed to do.... detect the path of a particle. If that doesn't qualify as a detector I don't know what does.

To say that the QWP is not a detector because it only "marks" the photon instead of "detecting" it seems more of a semantics game than anything else.

Quote:
Do you know any paper that has a similar setup as the one below? Where you can detect the particle passing through the slit? This would be ideal.
The quarter wave plates act as detectors at the slits. The only difference in Tom's is his detectors record directly somehow. However the setup in the two slit eraser records which path info (destroying the photon....Supposedly an irreversible process) from QWP'S at Ds, then later erases that info. Same concept as Tom's.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 7:18 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:24 am
Posts: 25
I am not betting much on this one, but in the videos from the LA-meeting Tom talks about his experiments and putting the system between a rock and a hard place.

I was wondering if there might exist a setup that forces the system to give off extra energy? That would really boost the interest in MBT, so maybe Tom or somebody else could figure out something. I dont have any suggestions myself :)


Top
PostPosted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:37 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:40 am
Posts: 51
For me, experiments 1c2 and 5 are the most importants ones.
I think my limited knowledge of QM is preventing me to see how they will be acomplished. Or maybe Tom didn’t give the technical procedures on pourpose, so he will let the physicists figure them out.
In experiment 1c2 I think there are 2 key technical features that we need to overcome:
- how to overcome the overlap at the screen of interference/ one slit diffraction in a way that the microprocessor could predict >50% the atom decay
- what kind of detector to use at the slits so it could detect the wich way info, record it and at the same time letting the particle go through.

Experiment 5 has a similar issue of overlap in the screen. Actually it is worse. Because not only you will have interference/ single slit overlapping, but also, fringes and anti-fringes overlap of the 2 possible ways to erase the wich way info. You can see this in this video below.
https://youtu.be/2Uzytrooz44 at 1:50


Top
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:37 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Yes I will say that I do not know of any kind of detector that works how Tom's picture shows. There are only experiments which rely on that basic concept. His goal is to prove the detection is not important, only the existence of which path information. Well.....This has already been proven experimentally for decades. But you have to either do an erasure if the detectors are at the slits (as in the two slit eraser), or move the detectors away from the slits (as in the delayed choice quantum eraser).

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:59 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:40 am
Posts: 51
Quote:
Yes I will say that I do not know of any kind of detector that works how Tom's picture shows. There are only experiments which rely on that basic concept. His goal is to prove the detection is not important, only the existence of which path information. Well.....This has already been proven experimentally for decades. But you have to either do an erasure if the detectors are at the slits (as in the two slit eraser), or move the detectors away from the slits (as in the delayed choice quantum eraser).
Physicists are already becoming aware that the wich way information is the key here. But I think we need a experiment that shows whether consciousness colapses the wave function or if the information beeing avaible in our universe does that. The envelope experiment is a way to do that.
It would be awesome to do experiments 1c and 5 to work, but I think thats not going to be easy because of these technical details I talked in the posts above.
Let's just cross our finger and hope for the best.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Tom's entire point and purpose of 1c2 is to demonstrate that the detectors are not causing the interference pattern to disappear. I provided an experiment that already proved this: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0106078

I explained why that is, but i'd like to add an independent analysis from a university physics student: http://laser.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/eraser/
Quote:
However, once this is kind of measurement is set up, the photons will no longer collectively produce a nice pattern of bright and dark spots. Instead they will strike the screen in one big bright spot, as if there were only one slit instead of two.

One can wonder then, if this perplexing behavior is just due to a disturbance between the "which-way" detector and the photon. The detector might be changing something about the photon which causes it to get off course to its position in the interference pattern. The answer is, as the experiment described in the next section shows, that this is not the case. A "which-way" detector can be designed that in no way disturbs the photon and the same phenomenon is observed.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:46 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:40 am
Posts: 51
I think the point of the experiment 1c2 is to show that we can predict a future atom decay (true random event) based on the result of the double slit screen. Ie: if we get two bars, it would alway decay to the right, if we get interference it would always decay to the left. That would be a amazing experiment, that would blow the scientists minds, and put in check the materialist view of reality.
So it is a very clever experiment, but I think it has some problems with the design, and that is why I have created this thread so we could discuss this matter.

TJung


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
You are right, I meant exp.2 which is the one with detectors on but not recording.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:30 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:48 am
Posts: 14
Didn't watch Tom's new videos yet, but already saw some critics. Can someone tell me are they ok or the critic miss the point somewhere?
"
we have detector at one hole and recorder a distance away, then we cut the wire connecting the two. According to Tom, detection is occurring and recording is not, and since the record is crucial (not the detection) -- we will get IP (since we have no record).
1. Just as we CAN obtain the record from the recorder (if no wire was cut), we CAN obtain the change in the detector, and regardless of the cut.
2. And there IS a change in the detector, or else it does not beep or bump or heat up --- or do whatever Tom says detector's do. And so, if there is no change in the detector, why does Tom call it a detector? How can a thing detect without changing in any way?
3. So, if there is NO change in the detector, it is not a detector. And if not one, then there is no detector THERE (at the hole). And thus Tom's scenario is simply two holes and nothing more. So OF COURSE the result is IP (and this is already known)--- because there is no measurement, no detection (no detector).
4. So in order for Tom to get anywhere (in his dreamy ideas) he needs it to be true that the detector IS detecting and the recorder varied (cut or uncut).
5. But wait --- if the detector is detecting, then it does change, and so that change is there for us to know -- and so the outcome is NOT ip.
6. Therefore everything is done BEFORE the recorder gets to do anything. Tom does not realize that a detector, insofar that it IS a detector, is essentially a recorder (since its change can be known, just as the record can be). Hence Tom only creates redundancy -- he puts a space between detector and recorder -- as if this MOVES the 'recording' aspect to ONE side! That's like me splitting your dollar into two piles of change, and then thinking only one side can make a purchase. Tom's whole concept is logically corrupt.

"


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited