Double Slit Anomalies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

quantumleap2

Guest
<font size="3" color="#0000ff">I have seen some videos on youtube that make some pretty outrageous claims about the results of variations on the double slit experiment. But details seem to be missing. They claim that the act of observing- regardless of the method of observation- changes the condition and collapses the wave. One even went so far as to claim that the results you got yesterday depend on choices you make today. Here are the links so you can watch them yourself. </font><font size="3" color="#339966">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4</font><font size="3" color="#0000ff">&nbsp;and especially part 6 of this 8 part video: </font><font size="3" color="#339966">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgnuib0z0vI</font><font size="3" color="#0000ff">&nbsp; Surely there is something happening here that eludes us, but what?</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have seen some videos on youtube that make some pretty outrageous claims about the results of variations on the double slit experiment. But details seem to be missing. They claim that the act of observing- regardless of the method of observation- changes the condition and collapses the wave. One even went so far as to claim that the results you got yesterday depend on choices you make today. Here are the links so you can watch them yourself.&nbsp; ....&nbsp; Surely there is something happening here that eludes us, but what? <br />Posted by <strong>holdthebs</strong></DIV><br /><br />Let me say that the guy in the 2'nd vid you linked to has a website.&nbsp; On that website he correctly discusses the experiment that leads to the vid you saw.&nbsp; Unfortunately he has misunderstood the results and the vid is an incorrect interpretation / description&nbsp;of those results.&nbsp; This was discussed in another thread which is here. </p><p>That all said, I agree that the "simple" 2 slit experiment has "something happening" and a true, understandable interpretation eludes ... well me at least.&nbsp; I like the experiment because it's setup and implementation is so simple to understand and yet the odd results illustrate the weirdness of the quantum world. I have a gut feeling that if only I could get a better intuitive {for lack of a better word}&nbsp;understanding of why it works the way it does then the Heavens would open and all would be revealed.&nbsp; Alas wave-particle duality still appears odd to me.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
Q

quantumleap2

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let me say that the guy in the 2'nd vid you linked to has a website.&nbsp; On that website he correctly discusses the experiment that leads to the vid you saw.&nbsp; Unfortunately he has misunderstood the results and the vid is an incorrect interpretation / description&nbsp;of those results.&nbsp; This was discussed in another thread which is here. That all said, I agree that the "simple" 2 slit experiment has "something happening" and a true, understandable interpretation eludes ... well me at least.&nbsp; I like the experiment because it's setup and implementation is so simple to understand and yet the odd results illustrate the weirdness of the quantum world. I have a gut feeling that if only I could get a better intuitive {for lack of a better word}&nbsp;understanding of why it works the way it does then the Heavens would open and all would be revealed.&nbsp; Alas wave-particle duality still appears odd to me. <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV><br /><br /><font size="3" color="#0000ff">Thanks for the info. I have to admit he had me going there. I feel as if the Heavens have opened up and all has been revealed. LOL Thats a great one. Most likely it would have some very mundane explanation that will make us all slap our foreheads and then the magic will be gone.</font></p><p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">&nbsp;Do I understand correctly that in the delayed decision version they are not actually using the original photon to generate the interference pattern?</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do I understand correctly that in the delayed decision version they are not actually using the original photon to generate the interference pattern? <br /> Posted by holdthebs</DIV></p><p>That's right. The original photon is "down-converted" into two entangled photons with half the frequency, after it has passed through the slit. One of those entangled photons, the "signal" photon, is sent directly to a detector screen whilst the other one, the "idler" photon, is sent along a separate path for each slit, thus the "which path" information for the "idler" photons exists. The "signal" photons do not make an interference pattern at the detector, as their entangled photons have "which path" information.</p><p>If you detect the idlers with "which path" information and correlate the hits on their detector with the hits on the signal photon detector, you find no interference pattern, but if you erase the "which path" information for some of those idler photons before they hit a detector, so the detector cannot know which slit the idler photon corresponds to, you find that if you correlate the hits from the detectors that recieved "erased" idler photons with the hits on the signal photon detector, those entangled signal photons <em>did indeed</em> hit their detector in the correct place to make an interference pattern. The interference pattern was hidden in the data and can only be revealed once you have the information from the detectors of the erased idler photons, and the choice as to whether to erase the "which path" information or not doesn't need to happen until <strong>after</strong> all the signal photons have hit their detector. </p><p>This seems to imply that quantum entanglement works backwards in time, but you cannot transmit information backwards through time as you can only correlate the information at the speed of light, after the idler photons have been detected. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
T

TheBluePill

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's right. The original photon is "down-converted" into two entangled photons with half the frequency, after it has passed through the slit. One of those entangled photons, the "signal" photon, is sent directly to a detector screen whilst the other one, the "idler" photon, is sent along a separate path for each slit, thus the "which path" information for the "idler" photons exists. The "signal" photons do not make an interference pattern at the detector, as their entangled photons have "which path" information.If you detect the idlers with "which path" information and correlate the hits on their detector with the hits on the signal photon detector, you find no interference pattern, but if you erase the "which path" information for some of those idler photons before they hit a detector, so the detector cannot know which slit the idler photon corresponds to, you find that if you correlate the hits from the detectors that recieved "erased" idler photons with the hits on the signal photon detector, those entangled signal photons did indeed hit their detector in the correct place to make an interference pattern. The interference pattern was hidden in the data and can only be revealed once you have the information from the detectors of the erased idler photons, and the choice as to whether to erase the "which path" information or not doesn't need to happen until after all the signal photons have hit their detector. This seems to imply that quantum entanglement works backwards in time, but you cannot transmit information backwards through time as you can only correlate the information at the speed of light, after the idler photons have been detected. <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This is all very confusing. Could you translate that into English? Also, what's with scientists saying the particle goes through both slits at the same time? They don't really believe that do they?</p>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
This is all very confusing. Could you translate that into English? Also, what's with scientists saying the particle goes through both slits at the same time? They don't really believe that do they?
I can't really do any better than the description I gave here. My description above was just a synopsis of that. _______________________________________________
SpeedFreek
 
Q

quantumleap2

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's right. The original photon is "down-converted" into two entangled photons with half the frequency, after it has passed through the slit. One of those entangled photons, the "signal" photon, is sent directly to a detector screen whilst the other one, the "idler" photon, is sent along a separate path for each slit, thus the "which path" information for the "idler" photons exists. The "signal" photons do not make an interference pattern at the detector, as their entangled photons have "which path" information.If you detect the idlers with "which path" information and correlate the hits on their detector with the hits on the signal photon detector, you find no interference pattern, but if you erase the "which path" information for some of those idler photons before they hit a detector, so the detector cannot know which slit the idler photon corresponds to, you find that if you correlate the hits from the detectors that recieved "erased" idler photons with the hits on the signal photon detector, those entangled signal photons did indeed hit their detector in the correct place to make an interference pattern. The interference pattern was hidden in the data and can only be revealed once you have the information from the detectors of the erased idler photons, and the choice as to whether to erase the "which path" information or not doesn't need to happen until after all the signal photons have hit their detector. This seems to imply that quantum entanglement works backwards in time, but you cannot transmit information backwards through time as you can only correlate the information at the speed of light, after the idler photons have been detected. <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">Ok, I have read everything I could find on this and I have some observations. Either I'm missing something, or they are rigging the experiment( perhaps unintentionally)&nbsp;and are then surprised when the results reveal that. Do you agree with the following?&nbsp;First, the way its set up, its a wonder that it works at all. Since the original photon, the one that goes through the&nbsp;slit,&nbsp;is absorbed to produce two new ones. it cannot produce an interference pattern, or any other pattern. Next, the signal photon is sent to D0. Since, by definition, an interfered photon will follow a different path from an uninterfered one, how can this one receptor determine the pattern? Am I correct that no actual pattern is generated, rather the pattern is inferred from the assumption outlined here:</font></p><p><font size="3" color="#ff0000">At this point, it is possible to correlate the which-way information of these two groups of photons with the corresponding subset of photons detected at D0. We could paint eg in violet all hits at D0 corresponding to hits at D3 or D4, and we find that their distribution has no interference (<strong><u>according to the fact that the which-way information is known</u></strong>). We could then paint in red all hits at D0 corresponding to hits at D1, and in blue those corresponding to hits at D2, ie. after the erasure of the which-way information, and we find that their distribution shows two interference pattern, one with fringes for D1 and one with anti-fringes for D2, which cancel when added together.( <font color="#000000">from the article entitled</font> The quantum eraser experiment&nbsp;)</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">If so, then its no surprise that the data is actually computer generated and the principal of GIGO reveals the answer to the riddle.<br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have seen some videos on youtube that make some pretty outrageous claims about the results of variations on the double slit experiment. But details seem to be missing. They claim that the act of observing- regardless of the method of observation- changes the condition and collapses the wave. One even went so far as to claim that the results you got yesterday depend on choices you make today. Here are the links so you can watch them yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4and especially part 6 of this 8 part video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgnuib0z0vI Surely there is something happening here that eludes us, but what? <br /> Posted by holdthebs</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Yes, double slit experiment and its explanations are very puzzling.&nbsp; I personally am not satisfied with any interpretation I have read so far. My suspicions are on 2 things.</font></p><p><font size="2">1) Experimental procedures, hardwares, detectors all somehow someway (still hidden to us) affect the result of the experiment. </font></p><p><font size="2">2) We still don't fully understand how an elementary particle behaves as a single entity in space-time.&nbsp; Quantum mechanics comes close to explaining it but it seems&nbsp; wavefunctions are not the whole story. </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
Q

quantumleap2

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, double slit experiment and its explanations are very puzzling.&nbsp; I personally am not satisfied with any interpretation I have read so far. My suspicions are on 2 things.1) Experimental procedures, hardwares, detectors all somehow someway (still hidden to us) affect the result of the experiment. 2) We still don't fully understand how an elementary particle behaves as a single entity in space-time.&nbsp; Quantum mechanics comes close to explaining it but it seems&nbsp; wavefunctions are not the whole story. <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br /><font size="3" color="#0000ff">I agree- well mostly. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance" and spent 20 + years trying to disprove it. There's definitely some very strange things going on but the simple double slit can be explained with the wavefunction theory. &nbsp;I think we could make better progress if we took the "spookiness" out of it. Guys like Ross Rhodes just muddy the waters.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree- well mostly. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance" and spent 20 + years trying to disprove it. There's definitely some very strange things going on but the simple double slit can be explained with the wavefunction theory. &nbsp;I think we could make better progress if we took the "spookiness" out of it. Guys like Ross Rhodes just muddy the waters. <br /> Posted by holdthebs</DIV></p><p>Einstein was spooked by entanglement which is an entirely different beast.&nbsp; Einstein was actually the fellow that solidified/solved the wave-partical duality concept with his photoelectric effect paper for which he won the Nobel Prize. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
Q

quantumleap2

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Einstein was spooked by entanglement which is an entirely different beast.&nbsp; Einstein was actually the fellow that solidified/solved the wave-partical duality concept with his photoelectric effect paper for which he won the Nobel Prize. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br /><font size="3" color="#0000ff">Hi Derek. So what's your take on this experiment? Have I got that right about it being a simulation? And GIGO?</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
No it is not a simulation, as the idler photons are all matched with their entangled signal photons. You can account for all the idler photons at D1, D2, D3 and D4 and you find that all their hits correlate to the positions of their signal photons hits at D0, but you cannot do this until after you have detected all the idler photons. It is definitely not garbage in, garbage out. You can do it one photon at a time if you like. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
Q

quantumleap2

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it is not a simulation, as the idler photons are all matched with their entangled signal photons. You can account for all the idler photons at D1, D2, D3 and D4 and you find that all their hits correlate to the positions of their signal photons hits at D0, but you cannot do this until after you have detected all the idler photons. It is definitely not garbage in, garbage out. You can do it one photon at a time if you like. <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br /><font size="3" color="#0000ff">Thanks for responding, SF. Okay, I guess I'm lost again. If the primary photon goes through the double slit how do we then send it to the crystal since its path is now unpredictable? Why doesn't the double slit go between the crystal and D0? For entanglement to work wouldn't we have to send the signal photon through?</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p>I understand the basics of quantum mechanics but the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment is a bit beyond my scope of understanding.&nbsp; However, I did watch part 6 of the lecture you recommended.&nbsp; I'm not really clear on how his theory differs from the original experiment.&nbsp; The only real flaw I could find is that he appears to be making a distinction between mechanical detection and human observation.&nbsp; I don't believe the Copenhagen interpretation makes such a distinction.&nbsp; I believe that making such distinctios leads to erroneous results and paradoxes that don't exist. </p><p>I'm not confident I could add anything to this thread that hasn't already been said.&nbsp; And, again... this is out of my scope and don't wish to mislead through my ignorance.&nbsp; I could take a good stab at it, but I just don't have the time right now self-educate myself on this.</p><p>I already made a comment on the difference between entanglement and duality without even realizing both are involved in this experiment... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-embarassed.gif" border="0" alt="Embarassed" title="Embarassed" />. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for responding, SF. Okay, I guess I'm lost again. If the primary photon goes through the double slit how do we then send it to the crystal since its path is now unpredictable? Why doesn't the double slit go between the crystal and D0? For entanglement to work wouldn't we have to send the signal photon through? <br /> Posted by holdthebs</DIV></p><p>The crystal (BBO) is directly behind the slits and thus the original photons that pass through each slit all have to hit the crystal. </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment</p><p>The point of the experiment is to find a way to examine the photons that pass through the slits, but without interacting with them directly. There would be no point down-converting the photons into entangled pairs before the slits, unless you sent both the signal and the idler through the slit, and then you could not examine one without affecting the other.</p><p>If you simply send the signal and idler photons directly to a detector screen without sending the photons from different slits down different paths you would still get the interference pattern at their detectors, as no "which-path" infomation is contained in the system. Down converting the photons does not provide "which-path" information, it provides two entangled particles where what you do to one will affect the other.</p><p>The delayed choice quantum eraser still shows us that particles act like a wave and interfere with themselves, but if you detect which path the particle took, you get no interference. It also shows us that if you remove the information of "which path" the photons took, the interference reappears. It shows us that you can take photons, send them through slits, down convert them into entangled pairs, and the same thing applies. If you know which path the idler took, the signal photon shows no interference, but if you remove the "which path" information from the idler before it is detected, the signal photons do show an interference pattern. The real doozy is that it shows us that you can remove the "which-path" information from the idlers after all the signal photons have been detected, and you will find that the signal photons for those "erased" idlers actually did hit their detector in an interference pattern after all! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
S

sciconoclast

Guest
I see I am not the only one that isn't content with quantum theory's non-locality explanation for the double slit experiment. My understanding of quantum theory, which may very well be incorrect, is that light does not start out as a photon but as a solely mathematicla probability field. This quantum field does not collapse into a photon until the photon is tested for at a position and time where the probability for occurrence is highest. Actual photons do not pass through the slits but come into existence on the screen where the two possible paths overlap to form the highest probability for photon occurrence. Any required symmetry or charateristic for a photon associated with any of the paths to the point of detection negates the dual path probability and hence the interference like pattern. Quantum philosophy, which the presenter in one of the videos obviously espouses, is the belief that a physical test is not enough to produce a photon but that their must be conscious awareness of the results. This belief is not necessary to quantum theory and by definition is un-testable. There are other theories that predict the same results as quantum theory with less majic such as the Brogile-Bohm causal interpretation of quantum mechanics and experiments as well that contradict quantum predictions such as the Shahriar Afshar experiment. I am extremely interested in interferometry and have a web site devoted to it. I am new to this forum and I hope giving a reference to one of my web sites doesn't violate the rules. It is http://sites.google.com/site/photonexperiments . You will have to go directly to the url address as it hasn't been listed yet with the browsers. If anyone is interested they will find discussion of several new experiments as well as historical experiments ( including the delayed choice experiments ) which challenge quantum theory as well as give support to alternative theories. Comments are welcomed.
 
K

KurtVonFritz

Guest
OK, just a theory of mine: All electrons are interconnected, and thus they spin / vibrate at the exact same rate no matter how influenced...
Photons exist in your brain, too, so your brain wave/electrical/photon activity influences the outcome of the experiment with a single photon, since a single photon requires just a tiny amount of energy to be influenced...or to detect its being observed, whatever the need for the photon sensing that observation is present, it does so due to the conscious activity taking place in brains of creatures smart enough to create the abstract image of the happening event in advance...
and keep reading here:
/but the the abstract image of the happening event in advance that is right in your brain is also made of the same particles, so they just interact! Your thoughts are nothing but electrical impulses taking place between photons in your brain!
By "abstract image" I mean me imagining how I lite a cigarette-and that happens before I actually do light a cigarette, but the same image of me doing so appeared before i lit the cigarette, so the sequence of events is the same-my imagination first defines the outcome of my actions.
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
KurtVonFritz":2uzxh044 said:
.... so the sequence of events is the same-my imagination first defines the outcome of my actions.
Wha ... ? What are you trying to say here ? I can well imagine hitting a golf ball and driving it perfectly to a hole in one some 450 yards away. Guess what, imagine as hard as I try, it still hasn't happened. In this case my imagination did not "define" the outcome of my actions. How, if at all, does this factor into your theory ?
 
K

KurtVonFritz

Guest
Yes, because:
1. You have a weak imagination
2. An average golf ball has many billions of atoms and photons, too hard for your imagination /a hard physical entity, even when imagining a golf ball/ to influence;
3. *Imagination is more important than knowledge. *(Albert Einstein).
 
K

KurtVonFritz

Guest
NOW you actually imagine lighting a cigarette-this is a physical combination of atoms/electricity in your brain that creates the virtual image of the action that is going to take place in the future, and that image is quite close to what happens to what is withion your rage of action/you light a cigarette!
So the same fact that an event occured inside your brain before the actual event is quite amazing, and you are wondering about a single photon!
The above is somewhat impossible according to some "laws", and it happens every day...
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
KurtVonFritz":3e93wdn6 said:
Yes, because:
1. You have a weak imagination
You're the first to say that.

KurtVonFritz":3e93wdn6 said:
2. An average golf ball has many billions of atoms and photons, too hard for your imagination /a hard physical entity, even when imagining a golf ball/ to influence;
Unlike the number of atoms in your match, the flame, the cigarette, your hand and arm and the air surrounding these items.....

KurtVonFritz":3e93wdn6 said:
3. *Imagination is more important than knowledge. *(Albert Einstein).
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. " Richard P. Feynman
 
K

KurtVonFritz

Guest
OK,

You're the first to say that.
- I was joking, I dont care, i dont know you.

Unlike the number of atoms in your match, the flame, the cigarette, your hand and arm and the air surrounding these items.....
-Yes, but this is within my range of action, since its my arm, my match and my cigarette. Puff.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. " Richard P. Feynman
-I dont know that guy Richard, too, i bet you made this up...

Try to think: the same image in your brain of something happening before it happens is a paradox since it exists in atoms, before the source of information/THE EVENT/ occured, this is delayed event occurence, its the same with the photons! I can go for miles here.
I would like to hear your opinion how that happens.

...........................
anyone experimenting with ultrasonic extremes here?
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
KurtVonFritz":oiqb3enm said:
I dont know that guy Richard, too, i bet you made this up...
You're posting in the Physics forum, talking about the QM world and how it might work and you haven't heard of Richard Feynman ?!?! Shirley you jest.
http://peoppenheimer.wordpress.com/2007 ... -yourself/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

KurtVonFritz":oiqb3enm said:
Try to think: the same image in your brain of something happening before it happens is a paradox since it exists in atoms, before the source of information/THE EVENT/ occured, this is delayed event occurence, its the same with the photons! I can go for miles here. I would like to hear your opinion how that happens.
There might be a paradox if the "image in your brain" was a result of the yet to happen cause but that's not the case is it ? The "image in your brain" isn't a copy of the actual event nor is the actual event even a true copy of the "image in your brain". The "image in your brain" doesn't arise from the event about to happen but is an extrapolation of prior similar events. It's a replay, not a paradox. I challenge you to imagine and describe in exact detail what will occur in some experiment where you haven't seen it done before nor understand the underlying physics of event to occur. Let no detail go unrecorded and unquantified prior to the experiment. And remember what science is ....

For the experiment I might even suggest dropping a rubber ball (how easy is this !) you haven't seen bounce before from the height of your nose. Imagine how high it'll bounce and write down that number. Mark the ball so any rotation can be recorded. Imagine the ball and write down what it's rotation will be when it rebounds to it's max height. Same thing for any lateral deviation from straight up/down. Heck, hang a string from the ceiling to where your imagination tells you the ball will top out on bounce #1 so it'll be easy to compare prediction to result. Do the experiment and record it via a webcam (or whatever). Given your powerful imagination it should be easy to devine the exact results apriori. If your predictions dont match your measurements down to the limit of your measuring capability then I expact you have some 'splaining to do. Get back to us and let us know how well it all went.

Now if your intent is some Penrosian discussion of how freewill occurs in a deterministic system and the foundations of human consciousness then you've got me, it's been decades (just about) since I read The Emperor's New Mind.

ps : As for going miles .... any chance that could be miles away from access to SDC ? ;)
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Tangent alert:

Utterly fascinating. There is a certain irony here. I have seen many - on the fringes - who use
Feynman as an example to justify they way that they think. (And for the fact that they
fell like they do not need to "restricting" disciplines of math/physics etc. to explore
problem solving)

Feynman was famous for a lot of things, but one of the traits that many latch onto is his
propensity for examining a number of new fields, some of which had little or no connection
to his prior work. When he did this, he made it a point to read little or nothing in the way of
papers in that area - he chose to examine it afresh.

The reasons he was able to do this with remarkable success was the solid logical and
analytical base that he brought to problem solving and the fact that he was a *genius*.
The irony of most who claim this as there model for the way they look at problems is that
they are generally neither of the above.

There is of course and additional irony in that one of the most famous of Feynman's
famous lectures covers the double slit experiment.

Wayne
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
drwayne":3n48vyhj said:
Tangent alert:

Utterly fascinating. There is a certain irony here. I have seen many - on the fringes - who use
Feynman as an example to justify they way that they think. (And for the fact that they
fell like they do not need to "restricting" disciplines of math/physics etc. to explore
problem solving)

Feynman was famous for a lot of things, but one of the traits that many latch onto is his
propensity for examining a number of new fields, some of which had little or no connection
to his prior work. When he did this, he made it a point to read little or nothing in the way of
papers in that area - he chose to examine it afresh.

The reasons he was able to do this with remarkable success was the solid logical and
analytical base that he brought to problem solving and the fact that he was a *genius*.
The irony of most who claim this as there model for the way they look at problems is that
they are generally neither of the above.

There is of course and additional irony in that one of the most famous of Feynman's
famous lectures covers the double slit experiment.

Wayne
And there is quite a difference between starting with a "fresh perspective" and tossing out established physics. Feynman knew the fundamental theories of physics, knew their domain of validity,and knew their limitations and the open questions in the area. As he once said he he practiced physics in the "straight jacket" imposed by the known principles of physics.

Wackos who use Feynman to support their delusions are hysterical. Feynman was a deep thinker, not an unfettered nut. His mind was actually very disciplined.

There is alot of physics that is not understood. There is a lot physics that is quite well understood. It is vital to know the difference. Feynman did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts