Return Home
It is currently Sat May 18, 2024 1:22 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:13 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
@Tom

Thank you for your comments!
As well as for your whole work!
It has helped pulling away another veil for me ...

I contacted him (matrixwissen) and he as well as you basically said that it is not much more than a graphics glitch.
Easy to deal with in case someone (like me ... ;) ) does notice and objects.
I agree.

All the best!


Top
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Jeff: "The cases of 'detectors on but not recording' and 'detectors on, but the recording is destroyed before you look' would seem to still show a destruction of interference in my limited understanding. This is because the 'particles' (even the wave behavior still exposes 'localized' grains of silver on a screen!?!) would have reached the final detector while the slit detectors were in operation."

For those of you who do not understand exactly what Jeff is saying, here is a longer doctored version that makes Jeff’s point more clearly:
Jeff: "The cases of A 'detectors on but not recording' and B 'detectors on but the recording is destroyed [before the data on the screen is examined]’ would seem to still [have to] show a destruction of interference [i.e., there must be dots directly behind the slits] in my limited understanding. This is because the 'particles' (and even the wave behavior) still exposes 'localized' grains of silver on a screen [to light -- and thus permanently change those grains of silver]?!) [This light] would have reached the final detector and modify specifically located particles of silver while the slit detectors were in operation [in both cases A and B]" How can the specific changes in the silver particles (must be dots directly behind each slit since detection was occurring) be changed to an interference pattern some time later as claimed in case A and B?

Tom: This is the crux of your problem. You believe that reality must be objective -- thus you believe that "the 'particles' (and even the wave behavior) still exposes 'localized' grains of silver on a screen [to light -- and thus permanently change those grains of silver]?!) ". It does not. I suspect you are thinking: 'What do you mean, "It does not"' That is impossible! it has to! The particles of light have to hit the silver film and make an inerasable mark in some specific unchangeable position on the screen. If Reality were objective, you would be right, but it's not and you aren’t. This is what the double slit is shouting at us: "Our local reality is not objective!"

Reality is not objective, it is virtual and informational. Reality in PMR is simply information. The silver and screen are nothing more than information. All information begins as a probable occurrence and it remains only probable until someone needs the information (perceives or makes a measurement that makes the information available in PMR). After that whatever was perceived (data made available in PMR) must remain as is to provide historical consistency within the reality. The pattern of silver on the screen remains only a probable pattern until some VR player perceives it (requires the data) -- even if that perception occurs a year after the experiment was completed. When the screen is finally observed, the result must maintain historical consistency. If history (available information in PMR) says there was a particle measured (perceived) then the screen must show the probability of dot placement, which, because of detector data, must be 1 directly behind each slit and 0 everywhere else, that is, dots are only found directly behind the slits. If there is no such data, (whether it was never collected or collected and erased makes no difference) then the screen must show the result of evaluating the probability of dot placement, which, because of no existing detector data being available in PMR, must be an interference pattern of the probability that emanates from each slit because the future probable photon must remain probability until a measurement is made which first occurs at the screen. Thus a diffraction pattern is the result of collapsing the probability function at the screen. The exact location of the future probable particle must remain a future probability until someone requires that information. Because the requirement for historical consistency within PMR can modify the probability distribution, when someone does require that information (look at the screen a year later), the result meets both the historical necessity of the present moment and the rule-set that delivers the most probable distribution of dots.

If one has a deep-set cultural belief in objective reality, then the logical ramifications of reality being virtual just don’t make sense. An assumption of objective causality makes virtual reality logic sound like impossible nonsense. That is why Richard Feynman said “shut up and calculate” and that understanding the results of the double slit experiment was utterly impossible. You, like many others, are stuck in the same belief trap. However, without Feynman’s advanced knowledge of quantum mechanics, you think that the results gathered from double slit experiments over the last 90 years (particularly the many delayed erasure experiments) must be wrong, misinterpreted, that Bohr and Heisenberg (principal writers of the Copenhagen statement) must have been confused, because the results reported (and codified by the Copenhagen statement) are obviously impossible and ridiculous. Feynman, being an excellent quantum theorist, knew the reported results were accurate and correct, he merely believed that they were fundamentally incomprehensible. True believers can never be persuaded by rational argument or by the facts.

Unfortunately, Feynman died before today’s very new virtual reality concepts surfaced. Today, yourself along with many physicists who are not excellent quantum theorists, struggle to maintain a belief in objective causality which causes them to believe that the results of the double slit experiments must be misunderstood and misinterpreted by misguided fringe elements because such ridiculous results are clearly impossible. Feynman and all other competent quantum theorists know better, as did Bohr, Heisenberg and the rest of the “founding fathers” of Quantum Mechanics. No Doubt, they were also stuck in an objective reality belief trap but they were knowledgeable enough, honest enough, and open-minded enough to accept the facts, even though these facts were completely unexplainable and incomprehensible. It is the general nature of all believers (composed mostly of those who don't really understand or appreciate the facts) to deny any facts that conflict with their belief and to see any who don't share their beliefs as confused and uninformed. Beliefs of all sorts are as common, in our culture, as breathing -- they seep into our awareness without our notice and are very difficult to discover... and even more difficult to get rid of.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:36 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:40 pm
Posts: 684
Location: Florida
Hello Tom thanks for the reply,
You may have not seen my earlier comments where I specifically stated that I don't think that the screen is really 'out there' when no one is looking.I realise that you're busy.So for the record,I have no 'problem' what so ever with the idea that reality is subjective and ,in fact, I Love the weird results they get in QM experiments.I've read that the so called 'Leggett Inequality' tests have basically smashed the idea that 'realism' could be true...and I'm ok with this.In fact, I think it's amazing. I'm not sure why you're projecting these 'belief trap' statements onto me and telling me what I believe ?

Anyway,you wrote:

"All information begins as a probable occurrence and it remains only probable until someone needs the information (perceives or makes a measurement that makes the information available in PMR). After that whatever was perceived (data made available in PMR) must remain as is to provide historical consistency within the reality. The pattern of silver on the screen remains only a probable pattern until some VR player perceives it (requires the data) --even if that perception occurs a year after the experiment was completed. When the screen is finally observed, the result must maintain historical consistency."

I don't see how I'm disagreeing with this at all....I'll keep reading it to see if I missed something.But in the meantime:

So why wouldn't the historical consistency (detectors were on because the experimenter turned them on and knows how they behave in the VR ) be maintained (would see 2 bands behind the slits) when a VR player requires the data from the screen instead of the recorded data of a slit detector? I think you missed the "crux of my problem".It is the following,I'll try it a few ways:

Why should 'data be made available' in the form of a recording from a slit detector in a consistent and reliable way; but not be made available on a 'backwall' in the same consistent and reliable way? Everyone is assuming that the slit data will be made available on the recording but they are not giving the same privileged status to the screen. Why?

What makes the slit recording so special that it's 'which path' data will always be made available and reflect the history of a so called 'particle' passing through;while the final detector will not?

Now, I'm not saying it's there when you're not looking.But when a player does look,why wouldn't the VR make data available that is consistent with the past presence of the slit detector that was on and functioning ? Remember,the scientist/VR player knew the set up in his/her history.

Why wouldn't the screen,when you do look, appear to have made "a measurement that makes the data available in PMR" ?

I can't explain my quandary any better than this..


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:25 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
I'll try one more time.

Heisenberg is said to have said, "The path [of the electron] comes into existence only when we observe it."
Jeff wrote:Why should 'data be made available' in the form of a recording from a slit detector in a consistent and reliable way; but not be made available on a 'backwall' in the same consistent and reliable way? Everyone is assuming that the slit data will be made available on the recording but they are not giving the same privileged status to the screen. Why?
You are speculating why the rules appear to be different than they should be.

Without speculation, this is what we get. It is consistent and reliable.
But for your own reasons you expect to see a different thing and thus struggle with what you actually get.

... because we could never see wave like behaviour, then?
Just particles all the time.
This would not solve the mystery but add to confusion because we could still see waves if we did not prepare for observation along the path (like the simple double slit experiment)
Or should we not see waves at all, ever?
Wich is just clearly not the case.

The way as well as the wave and the particle are not really there, they are all rather the representation of outcomes of equations, formulae, data.

You can't argue with a formula that the result should not be so.
It is rules applied.
You can use the result to see that it came from a formula and what it is describing.
That our reality only appears to be material.
Jeff wrote:What makes the slit recording so special that it's 'which path' data will always be made available and reflect the history of a so called 'particle' passing through;while the final detector will not?
There is no "which path" if there is no particle observed. Only when there is data (an actual measurement) at a specific slit will there be what we describe as a particle from there on in - reflected and confirmed by the final detector.

This seems circular to you, no?
Jeff wrote:Why wouldn't the screen,when you do look, appear to have made "a measurement that makes the data available in PMR" ?
Actual data is not there but still it should appear to be? Our reality run on fake data?
That would ultimately be the end of free will because the connection between a choice and its outcome would disappear.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:09 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:40 pm
Posts: 684
Location: Florida
This is not worth discussing any longer as no one seems to even be thinking about the things I've posted.This is my last try.

"... because we could never see wave like behaviour, then?
Just particles all the time."

No.Just particle-like paths when something is placed at a slit (in a simple DS) that can allow you to know 'which path' in principle,providing that that information is not 'scrambled' before(according to the speed of light rule) it should have reached the screen where it can be detected as a 'particle' or 'wave'. (And yes it can be at only one slit btw.If you can make a determination about one slit you will instantly know about the other.)


"Wich is just clearly not the case."...?

The 'hits' on the screen appear as 'particles' even when wave behavior is observed (inferred).When 'data becomes available' at the detector it is always determined by probability.If there was something present allowing you to know 'which path' then the 'particles' probability will be constrained and two bands appear.A probability wave that is not constrained by the presence of a slit detector still 'collapses' to a 'grain(s) of silver.' at the screen.This is no less strange for a believer in objective reality. Thats why I brought up the 'silver'. For a reason completely opposite of what I was accused of....

"Actual data is not there but still it should appear to be? Our reality run on fake data?
That would ultimately be the end of free will because the connection between a choice and its outcome would disappear."

This is exactly what you all are saying happens.

Take the time to think about what I'm saying.Watch this video carefully:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxHc6OqB7U

Now,are you going to tell me that if you do this with a photographic screen in place,do not scramble the data after the 'slit' polarizers, and then , if you hadn't looked at the screen while you did this you would see an intererence pattern when you finally do !!?? Really?? Because this is what is being claimed here;while at the same time claiming that consistency must be maintained. Which is it?


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:29 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
back to my continuing struggle to understand this in layman's terms

Once upon a time...A light particle is shot and passes randomly through one of two slits.

It passes through a crystal which halves it to a pair of (entangled) "half" particles:
- entangled...this is significant, as information on one of the pair regarding its measured [(potentially) perceived nature] must be consistent with the other...which-slit data measured on one is taken as which-slit data on the other by the system
- orthogonally oriented....this is the property that is used by the Glen Thompson prism to pull the pair pathway apart

Detector 0 (Which Slit erased for this entangled half twin)


The Glen Thompson prisms (one for each slit pathway) use the polarization of the pair to separate their paths and send one of the pair toward a lens which directs the halved particle to one measurement location on Detector 0, irrespective of which slit it passed through, and one of the pair is always directed to Detector 0, for every photon event.

- direct which slit information is always thus erased for detecter 0, and all things equal, in the absence of other information, such as a measurement on the twin, a wave pattern will be rendered over many photon events.

- the path to Detector 0 is shorter than the path of the twin entangled particle. The information at detector 0 is apparently recorded, before the information on the entangled twin is known.

Detector 3/4 (Which Slit conserved for second entangled twin - Particle Case)


Irrespective of which slit the other twin went through, it passes through a simple path separating prism and is directed toward a Beamsplitter. Rather than split the twin as was the case at the crystal, the Beamsplitter is like a railway track switching station, forcing the twin to quantumly (system decides photon by photon) choose between reflecting or passing through the Beamsplitter, on a 50/50 basis.

If it reflects, it immediately is directed to detector 3/4 (depending on which slit it came from), the which slit information has been conserved, is measured, retains the potential to be perceived, detector 3/4 records the clump/point pattern of a particle, but most significantly, the measurement at detector 0 apparently changes to detect and record particle behavior, through the entanglement mechanism, apparently backwards in time. ("little science"-wise)


I think...a Campbellian believes that nothing is collapsed or rendered between points of DELTA(t) observation by a conciousness, and this is why there is no time travel. The computer renders and collapses uncertainties/probabilities according to the information available at the moment a conciousness enters to look at the experimental results.


Detector 1/2 (Which Slit erased or this entangled twin - Wave Case)

This is anti-climactic. If the particle quantumly chooses to pass through the Beamsplitter, it gets redirected toward one other beamsplitter, used by both pathways from opposite directions, such that the twin may reflect or passthrough in a quantum 50/50 choice, effectively converging the pathways of photons from either slit, hitting one of two detectors, with the which slit information quantumly erased through this pathway convergence, which yields a wave pattern (over many photon events), but as well, the other twin retains its wave rendering at detector 0.

==

if this conversation takes you ten thousand years to resolve, this is not a waste of time - is there somewhere else you need to be? what could be more important?

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:51 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
@Jeff

I am thinking, I am trying! I just don't agree.
Again the quote from Heisenberg:
"The path [of the electron] comes into existence only when we observe it."
...
Please don't take things out of context!

One way of phrasing your questions was this:
Jeff wrote:Why wouldn't the screen,when you do look, appear to have made "a measurement that makes the data available in PMR" ?
Together with the preceding paragraph ... the way I understood what you where expecting was: the screen should show particle like behaviour even if a detector was present but not delivering data.
To which I replied this:
Actual data is not there but still it should appear to be? Our reality run on fake data?
That would ultimately be the end of free will because the connection between a choice and its outcome would disappear.
Implied (by me) was that there would, of course, result an interference pattern in such case.

You are disappointedly remarking:
This is exactly what you all are saying happens.

Now there is the figurative question mark hovering over my head and I have no way to put the meaning of that statement ...
...
The Home version of the DCQE:
here is the source together with a nice animation, so no need to watch the rather unnerving video

To make it short, NO interference is expected under the conditions you described. Really :)
Not in the experiment, not by me, don't know about others.
Does not matter whether you look or photograph it instead.
Why?
Because only vertically polarized light can pass on one side, only horizontally polarized light on the other.
That is a working labeller and quite different to a detector which is present and even switched on but not taking data; thus not labelling ...
But this is a home version.
Why dont you try?

I have not done this.
I don't have a laser nor do I have polarizing sunglasses to spare ;)
Much of the success could hang with the kind of polarizer used.
For the slit polarizer it seems to be passive material (it does not align the light but filters out what is not in the plane).
For the other polarizer they don't say.

It is on my to-do list, I always wanted a small laser ...


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:22 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
There are no particles. Carry on. :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
@kroeran

It may only be words, but the perceived meaning is important.
Thus I suggest to not use "light particle".
The word "photon" is more clear ... I guess.
A photon can appear to behave like a particle, or appear to behave like a wave.
Yet it IS none of eighter. We just observe behaviour, not things per se.
(until proven otherwise, that is)

The barium borat crystal does not "half" photons, but absorbs one and instead emits two entangled photons of half the frequency. The energy is thus conserved.

Detector 0:
Which slit is not erased there! This info is simply not ever available at this detector.
Only by correlating the photon at D0 with its twins path can we possibly know which slit it appeared to go through.
From D0 we know something went through, but not from where.

Detector 3/4:
"which path" can be established by correlating events at this detector with events at D0.
This happens after D0 has registered the twin photon.
The "which path" info is theoretically available during the time between detection at D0 and detection of the twin at D3/4
The photon has already registered at D0 but it was uncertain until now, which slit it appeared to have gone through.
This is described by some as "retroactive" but thats not it.
We are now certain that the photon behaved like a particle.

Detector 1/2:
For photons registering at D1 or D2, no "which path" can be established because D1 and D2 are equally likely to register photons from eighter slit.
Here happens the deliberate erasure of the available path info for 50% of the photons.
Its twin also already has registered at D0 some time ago.
Again it appears as "retroactive" but thats not it.
We gain - after the event at D0 - the knowledge that we cannot know, by correlating D0 with D1/D2
We are now certain that the photon behaved like a wave.

D0 registers all photons (one of a twin pair). Thats done.
Yet what we see there when looking at the correlated info gathered later (at D1/D2/D3/D4) depends on whether we could learn something about the path or not.

Hope I did not add to confusion.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Jeff, it is not about whether or not a particle is detected, it is about what objective information is available in PMR about that detection. That the detector is detecting without gathering any information is, from the viewpoint of our virtual reality, the same as no detector. The reality runs on information. Bette is correct. Remember these are virtual particles interacting with virtual slits, a virtual detector, and a virtual screen, and all is assesed by virtual scientists in a virtual lab within a virtual reality. The system is all information and runs according to specific rules. The rules have been optimized for this VR we call our physical universe, and they are applied consistently. If the rules were any different, PMR would not be as useful to us or to the LCS as it is.

kroeran, go to www.bottomlayer.com there is a very detailed (for the layman) explanation of this experiment there -- as well as the original paper. It is interesting to note that Ross sent his layman's interpretation of this experiment to the scientists who originally performed the experiment to make sure that his layman’s version was accurate. They concurred that it was accurate. This is a very good site in general for helping the layman understand the double slit experiments. Chapter 2 of the Reality Program provides a good introduction and summary of double slit results.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:47 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
that was d e l i c i o u s

has anyone tried this with marbles running down a sloped wood panel (ie. 2'*4'), a simple mechanical double slit equivalent, and a simple recording board?

1) create a narrow as possible fixed entry gap at the top, directly over the point of a wedge block, such that it hits the point of the wedge in the middle and chooses one of two paths - tune it to yield close to 50/50 chance of each path choice

2) the marble then travels on one of two paths, to then hit a board covered in a material that will record the marble strike - icing sugar? talcum powder? tin foil? (sloped slightly to encourage the marble to exit the board perpendicular to the hit pattern after striking it)

3) do this with a dozen marbles

under condition 1, the separation and journey to the panel would be concealed from measurement or view.

under condition 2, the path chosen by the marble would be viewed and recorded by consciousness in real time.

would condition 1 indicate wave interference on the board?

would condition 2 indicate particle behavior at the board?

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:46 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:40 pm
Posts: 684
Location: Florida
@Bette,
Yes,I totally think there is no such thing as a 'particle'. As Donald D Hoffman puts it in one of his papers, a particle is an icon of our species specific interface with reality.


@ Jonathan,
Yeah,it would be a fun toy to play with at home. I think my daughter may actually have a laser pointer come to think of it..hmmm.

I'm glad you don't think that the screen would show an interference pattern under the conditions I described ...(whew) : ) I would be baffled,you certainly seem reasonable and intelligent...

Ok Jonathan and Tom,
I think we are finally converging on some useful dialougue. I think I see where you are coming from so I'll quote the relevant parts:

Jonathan wrote:
"That is a working labeller and quite different to a detector which is present and even switched on but not taking data; thus not labelling ..."

and....

Tom wrote:
"That the detector is detecting without gathering any information is, from the viewpoint of our virtual reality, the same as no detector."

O.K.Below is an example of a detector that is switched on and not gathering information (that is useful anyway... ) not taking data or labeling.


"The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

Thus, by controlling the properties of the quantum observer the scientists managed to control the extent of its influence on the electrons' behavior."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 055013.htm

Information was made available at the screen.There was only the presence of an electrical current at the slits,but nothing was gathering information there.Nor was there anything at the slits such as a polarizer or QWP that would allow you to label which path. Yet ,interference is destroyed. The information is gathered at the backwall but it does not behave the same as having no detector when the current is increased.

It seems to me that if a detector is on,it is gathering data even though it may not be feasible to access this data.I think this shows that if slit-'particle' data is available even in principle you will destroy interference.Even if you don't have a 'realistic' way of getting the data.

So here's another angle:
So if a detector is on,you record data from it,then you 'destroy' that recording..... you really aren't destroying the information.Instead you are just making it more and more impossible to access.But the consequences of placing the device there should remain because of the consistency requirement.No interference pattern is rendered when you look. Remember,there is the PMR rule of conservation of matter and energy.The hypothetical tape would appear as 'carbon' and debris,its entropy would increase,etc and the experiment would be over with.

None of this has to mean that reality is objective.When we look at a screen,the history that we think must have happened if this were an objective reality is really determined for us at that moment anyway.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:07 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Jeff: "There was only the presence of an electrical current at the slits"

Simple explanation: Electric current creates a magnetic field that will influence (apply a force to) the electrons. The larger the current the greater the force. The closer the electron to the current, the stronger the field generated by the current is at the electron and the larger the force acting on the electron. Turn up the current and eventually this force will destroy the interference pattern.

Of course, interferring with the electron will destroy the interference patters -- much like your other examples where gas molecules are introduced to deflect or block the photons on their way to the slits. This sort of interference changes the probability distrobution such that near equal amounts of probability can not ocurr at each slit, thus no diffraction pattern.

Jeff: "So if a detector is on, you record data from it, then you 'destroy' that recording..... you really aren't destroying the information, Instead you are just making it more and more impossible to access."

"Impossible to access" is enough. The requirement is not just to create information, but to create objective information within PMR that is available. "Available" means that it could potentially produce an inconsistency within PMR.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:23 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:40 pm
Posts: 684
Location: Florida
twcjr wrote:Jeff: "There was only the presence of an electrical current at the slits"

Simple explanation: Electric current creates a magnetic field that will influence (apply a force to) the electrons. The larger the current the greater the force. The closer the electron to the current, the stronger the field generated by the current is at the electron and the larger the force acting on the electron. Turn up the current and eventually this force will destroy the interference pattern.

Of course, interferring with the electron will destroy the interference patters -- much like your other examples where gas molecules are introduced to deflect or block the photons on their way to the slits. This sort of interference changes the probability distrobution such that near equal amounts of probability can not ocurr at each slit, thus no diffraction pattern.

Jeff: "So if a detector is on, you record data from it, then you 'destroy' that recording..... you really aren't destroying the information, Instead you are just making it more and more impossible to access."

"Impossible to access" is enough. The requirement is not just to create information, but to create objective information within PMR that is available. "Available" means that it could potentially produce an inconsistency within PMR.
Thanks,
But I'm not seeing how a recording device at the slits is not in the same situation as above.It too must have interacted with a field somehow because its not just guessing there ? So information would be available on a recording ( no controversy there ) but we are saying here that correlated particle-like information at the screen would not be available and still be amendable.The experiment would be over by then so I can't see why this would be so ?

It seems like we all agree that impossible to access is enough,so why would an interference pattern would be present if a detector had been in operation?

Edit: That is to say that a detector should have some subtle entanglement with the 'particle' in order to detect anything at all, otherwise the detector isn't really working right? So if an 'impossible to access' probabilistic event is enough to destroy interference I'm not seeing why this would not also be so in chapter one of the video in regard to the *one at a time -single 'particle'* example.

thanks,
Jeff


Top
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:23 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Jeff wrote:... but we are saying here that correlated particle-like information at the screen would not be available and still be amendable. ...
You are saying that. As for me, I don't understand what you mean ;)

addition: your editing did not change that for me
I could only refer to Bette's short comment.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 7 8 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 0 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited