Return Home
It is currently Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:32 pm

All times are UTC-06:00


Forum rules


Do not make an initial post to start a new thread on this forum once you advance beyond the beginner level of posts. This forum is an experiment with the purpose of encouraging the participation of those who have so far only hung out in the background and looked over the bulletin board. It is intended to be a place where things are orderly for beginners without the free interaction of the main board. Post only with care for the recognition that we are welcoming a new member and not arguing with a fellow old timer. Your cooperation is appreciated.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 163 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 511 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:57 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:49 am
Posts: 105
Hi, can you clear for me something about DS experiment.

If recording device mesured in which slit electron went, and you DONT look at the data (but tape is existing - not burned, what would you get on screen in mesuring proces ?

Wave patern or particle signature ?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:12 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
I don't remember from the previous discussions. You could do a search and find and read the threads where this has been discussed so many times. We could also analyze it based upon how Tom has explained it. You are stating the conditions as being that an electron or photon (1 out of many or just one is not clearly stated) has passed through the slits and a measurement has been made as to which slit. You have not looked at that data however as a recording. As Tom describes it, the result of a diffraction pattern comes when the information as to which slit was passed through does not exist in PMR. That a spot pattern comes from when the information as to which slit was passed through exists in PMR as the probability wave has been collapsed into an observation of which of one probability versus the other probability occurred. You don't have to know which slit the particle has passed through by reading the data recording because the pattern tells you that, that is equally your measurement of which slit was passed through with the data in the recording device. You don't have to look at the recording in other words, the pattern will match the recording. After all, the recording is not going to show that it passed through the left slit yet the spot appears behind the right slit. Would you not then see spot patterns rather than diffraction patterns as many particles passed randomly through the slits?

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:30 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:49 am
Posts: 105
Ted, i remember one Tom lecture..
in one experiment there was only one difference

A. Mesurement tape was made but destroyed without looking ( wave patern)
B. Tape was look at - and particle patern was shown

I ask what would one get if tape is made, not look at, but not destroyed
(so it could be lookt at any time).

How yould system know future - will you look it up in future (so it shows particle), or you will destroyed it in future (SO it is vawe patern)

You see my dilema ?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:48 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
There is no dilemma except that my following description seems to disagree with the one Ted
gave.
I wrote it and then noticed Teds post.

Which is an opportunity for me as well to really clear that up.

If your result is on the screen (so to speak) - and you observe it
while you also have available the info on which slit an electron (which is a concept rather than a Thing) went through you would observe the electrons as particles.

If you have no way of knowing which slit electrons went through you would observe them behaving as waves (interference).

Since you could at any time choose to look at the existing data containing which path information you would see particle behaviour in the case you described.

If which path information exists at the time you look at the result ("screen") you get to see particles.
If which path information does not exist at the time you look at the result, you get to see waves.

bottomlayer.com has good comprehensible info on that (or so I thought ...)
- especially the first featured article "The Reality Program" as well as the one on the delayed choice quantum eraser.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:57 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:49 am
Posts: 105
Ok JOnathan,
but
Tom said that in one experiment ONLY difference was

A. tape is destroyed
B. it is look at

and result was different. so i dont know wich one is true.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:06 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
The experiment you refer to was a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment).
The delayed choice quantum eraser is a "real" one - and would yield the result I described.

It all depends solely on the availability of which path information.
That is how I understood it.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:24 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Think through it as I explained.
Quote:
I ask what would one get if tape is made, not look at, but not destroyed
(so it could be lookt at any time).
How yould system know future - will you look it up in future (so it shows particle), or you will destroyed it in future (SO it is vawe patern)
If you make a tape and simultaneously look at the pattern on the wall but not at the tape record, then you will see a particle pattern as you have made the measurement and recorded it on the tape. You have that tape which you say you will either look at or destroy but as long as the tape exists, it will show the data of a spot pattern as you say that the tape is a recording of which slit the particle passed through. It will then show a spot or particle type pattern. The system does not have to know whether you will eventually destroy the tape or not. As long as the tape exists, the information exists in PMR and the tape will show the particle pattern. If you later destroy the tape, the tape then shows nothing as it does not exist. I do not understand what your problem or question is. If you could go back into the past actualized data base to look at the pattern on the wall later, after destroying the tape record, the pattern on the wall would not have changed. The actualized data base is just that, what did happen. Destroying the tape in the future will not change what happened in the past.

Jonathan, I don't see any difference in what we said.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:51 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
It was this which got me a little confused and therefore thinking our descriptions differed:
Quote:
You don't have to look at the recording in other words, the pattern will match the recording. After all, the recording is not going to show that it passed through the left slit yet the spot appears behind the right slit. Would you not then see spot patterns rather than diffraction patterns as many particles passed randomly through the slits?
Somehow I had the impression you meant the "recording" would - on later examination - show matching data to whatever was already observed (eighter interference or particle behaviour).
And that, of course, struck me as odd.
I did not get that you, too, expected to see particle behaviour.

So we where indeed saying the same thing.
A misunderstanding on my part.

All the best!


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Posts: 1211
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
RomanCRO, Ted and Jonathan are correct in their explanation.

See the Calgary presentation, Tom explains it in most detail there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UL2Nl ... Bs#t=2266s (watch from there and about 40 minutes forward)


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:55 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:18 am
Posts: 124
I watched that video.

Now the question is: if DS results seem so strange here in PMR, is there any explanation for DS experiment results from NPMR perspective? I mean - why bother and make it so complicated, the creator of PMR could just put it simply - ok, let's have a photons as particles, and we are done with it. So maybe this light duality was created on purpose, as a big nudge to us: "hey, people in PMR, everything is not exactly as you assumed". Or maybe it was some kind of a "hack". As a programmer, I sometimes do some quick hacky coding if I cannot find some nice solution in a reasonable time. Although it seems unlikely - "the creators of PMR" had all the time they need, so why do some hacky solutions, if you are not in a hurry?

Do you know any other similar "nudges" which show how availability of information affects the results? Maybe there are even experiments that could be repeated at home?

I have watched movie "What the bleep we know - down the rabbit hole" (it received some negative critics for oversimplification, but anyway seemed a good movie). There was a following informational experiment explained. Scientists recorded beeps at random channels (left/right, which ever comes out of random generator). They did not observe the recording process. The recorded tape was given to some random person and he was told: "There should be more beeps in the right channel". This person listened to the recording, and reported: yes, there are more beeps on the right. I guess, they repeated it many times to avoid "this was just a coincidence" or else there is no way they could talk about any meaningful results.

Does anyone know more about such experiments and how far can they be pushed? It seems, it would be completely insane to tell "All the beeps should be on the right" and expect it to work, this would mean the information about generating process is being completely controlled by a single consciousness of the listener.

Anyway, back to DS. What about situation when we are receiving information, but are not able to process it consciously? How will it work? Let's imagine a following experiment:

There is a lab with DS and equipment in a sealed room. The observer in a lab has three LED indicators:

S1: Particle went through slot 1
S2: Particle went through slot 2
IN: There was interference pattern detected (wave function did not collapse)

Basically those LEDs are information. No any other recordings are being made, so all the information is gone after the experiment.

Now the experiment with a single photon is run at a great speed, so the observer cannot detect separate LEDs blinks.

What will the observer see now, when he is watching both the measurements and results in real time?
He can observe the S1 and S2, so he has the info, but it is coming so fast, that consciously he's not able to relate blinking of S1/S2 with IN. Will he see S1 and S2 blinking (too fast to notice separate blinks) and IN will be off all the time? After all, he is receiving the information from the slits, although he is not able to process it consciously.

Or maybe all the three LEDs will be blinking so fast, that they all will seem to be turned on? Although there is info coming to LEDs, there is no any conscious fixation of this information. But if we slow it down to some a speed when we start noticing S1 and S2 flashing, will then suddenly IN LED turn off and never lit up again? Does this also depend on the observers ability to receive the information (maybe someone is able to notice separate blinks at a higher speed than someone else)?

Now the observer turns off the LEDs S1 and S2. There is no more info about the slits. Will now the IN be on all the time, no matter how the speed of the experiment is changed? I guess, it should be on, after all now there is no info about slits at all.

_________________
In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:05 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
My take on NPMR perspective would be:

There are no photons.
There are no particles or waves.
It is just rules, data, math.
Simple rules, actually.
It's not as if someone made the rules up - and slipped.
Tom describes it as: they evolved.
But that can probably not really be proven, since it is outside of our reality frame.
It can be derived with some level of certainty from what we can observe, though.

That is why the math describes it flawlessly but it does not make sense to us, because we insist on all of it being somehow materially real.
It is real.

Just not material.
See also here.

While info on whitch path is theoretically available, you could observe particle-like behaviour.
However, the info on your "IN" could only be derived statistically, from more than one "photon".
After several "facts" at the detectors.
At that time you don't have info on which path for each single photon anymore - in your setup.
The result would be observing interference.

Same as with detectors off. They are not useful in your setup.

I suggest reading the article (mentioned above) on the delayed choice quantum eraser at http://bottomlayer.com
It is the original experiment, annotated by the guy in terms comprehensible to non-physicists.

As to the "what the bleep" part and other nudges:
there is the work of PEAR for instance.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:07 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
midix,

There are no 'things' in NPMR so that is the perspective from NPMR regarding the double slit experiment.

In general, as a metaphor for the details, the situation with the double slit arises because there is a limit to the existence of the PMR VR at a minimum size. You could consider this a matter of reality turning from an apparent physicality to information at this limit.

There is in fact a simplification that was implemented when PMR was created. It is the fact that PMR exists in two ways. First, it is calculated delta t increment by increment based upon a complex probability function that defines the 'physicality' of PMR into the future. This is a metaphor again as we cannot just order a printout of the equations that apply. This is done in the MBT model by The Big Computer as a metaphor for the actual details of the calculation. There is not calculation of every sub atomic particle and what it does. Our reality is not either created or calculated bottom up, built from what every sub atomic particle does.

The other, second, way that PMR exists as a VR is in how it is presented to and experience by every IUOC that participates in this PMR. That is, The Big Computer that puts on the show for us receives our inputs/decisions, delta t increment at a time, and puts out a data signal tailored individually for each participating IUOC that creates our perception of what happened in that increment. This is referred to as the Virtual Reality Rendering Engine aspect of TBC. Those double slits and particles you are concerned about do not in fact even exist except as a probability (the first way for the VR existence) and as part when and as appropriate of the incoming data stream (the second way for the VR existence) that creates our perception of the PMR VR. This data stream and our responses passes back and forth over the Reality Wide Web as a two way data buss which is the informational backbone of all of the Larger Consciousness System.

Together these ways of calculating the PMR VR create a great simplification, just as you thought would be logical. The whole shebang can be thought of as being based upon fractals and fractal levels. As part of this simplification, to create the digital data based input that is our PMR experience as participating IUOCs, only those fractal levels of which we can be aware need be calculated in detail by TBC via the Rendering Engine aspect. The rest that we cannot experience, as in the sun at night and the back side of things relative to us, need not be calculated for a given observer. Only the part that we can see. And there can be simplifications of fractal levels that we can only partially perceive as has been state so many times. Thus microscopic life in a puddle is rendered for humans as just dirty water. Trees on the far away mountain are rendered as a green blur. The vast galaxy around us is just rendered as lights in the sky.

That is, normally when we observe with our naked eyes. If we use instrumentation to observe with, details of larger and distant fractal levels are rendered. Also details of smaller fractal levels. But still only as we look through or otherwise observe with those instruments and to the extent that the instruments are capable of. So there is a great deal of simplification, all told.

In the posts above, I did not just describe the situations requested. I presented this as an explanation as to how to think through the situations in terms of a logic based upon what information exists within the PMR VR. If you did not follow that explanation and only looked at the results, then go back and read and study again to understand the technique and the logic. When you can understand the technique and its logical application, then you can come back here and answer your own further questions here as an exercise for the student.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:51 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:18 am
Posts: 124
Quote:
And there can be simplifications of fractal levels that we can only partially perceive as has been state so many times. Thus microscopic life in a puddle is rendered for humans as just dirty water.
Then it really makes sense: if we do not observe photons as separate particles, then simplification occurs and photons start behave as a group and create wave patterns.

This idea reminds me about game engines. In software 3D renderers it is being used a lot. For example, LOD (level of distance) and backface culling are some examples when programmers are using simplifications without any clue that the same principles might be in effect also in our PMR.

_________________
In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:41 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
midix,

Not so much that photons behave as a group, producing wave patterns, as that they are never taken out of the probability wave of where they might go and this original probability wave distribution produces the wave interference pattern. The rendering engine never has to render the individual photons to interact and produce the wave result from the bottom up. That can be skipped as a calculation saving and you cut to the chase of a wave interference pattern. You have the probability wave to begin with. Why not use it directly instead of calculate the existence and interactions of photons that need never be considered and certainly not individually rendered. The photons never exist as a physical reality, just as data in the stream. Your own hand held up in front of your own eyes never exists except as data in the stream. That is the VR conceptual model of physicality.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Doubble slit
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:32 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:18 am
Posts: 124
Could this mean that there may be situations when the Big Computer creates some new PMR rules on the fly for us, if we try to reach some deeper level of detail which is not yet defined (exists as a probability in some higher level of details)?

If some scientist creates a model which needs some new particle, and he strongly believes that this particle must exist, and then later he finds some tools to discover this particle... maybe this particle (information and rules) is created on the fly? The big computer "thinks": oh, they are struggling to prove the existence of this particle, let's see ... there are no conflicting information in their PMR, so it is fine. Poof! the new rule emerges and now everyone in that particular PMR can detect the new particle.
Or that is not the case and the ruleset of our PMR is in a "read-only" state?

_________________
In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.


Last edited by midix on Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 163 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 511 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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

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