Double Slit Experiment

[TimeSeeker]

Hickam's dictum only applies to complex objects, like organisms. Not the origins of the universe, which arise from simple stuff.

You have mistaken the complex for the simple. The Universe is the most complex system in existence.
Many orders of magnitude more complex than organisms.

That it may arise from 12 CATEGORIES of fundamental particles is neither here nor there. Organisms are made from exactly the same simple stuff as the universe

That there are 10^100 of those particles and they INTERACT. And they were all compressed in a TINY space smaller than the head of a needle!

That's very complex

[philosopher]

Hickam's dictum only applies to complex objects, like organisms. Not the origins of the universe, which arise from simple stuff.

You have mistaken the complex for the simple. The Universe is the most complex system in existence.
Many orders of magnitude more complex than organisms.

That it may arise from 12 CATEGORIES of fundamental particles is neither here nor there.
That there are 10^100 of those particles and they INTERACT. And they were all compressed in a TINY space smaller than the head of a needle!

That's very complex

The universe still do this complex stuff using simple principles.

[TimeSeeker]

The universe still do this complex stuff using simple principles.

Then so do organisms. We are made of exactly the same things as The Universe.

The principles MAY be simple. But when there are trillions of principles - the system is still complex!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity

[philosopher]

The universe still do this complex stuff using simple principles.

Then so do organisms.

Yes. But many simple interactions creates a whole that is complex. The reason you must use Hickams dictum ie. in medicine or elsewhere, is because of ignorance. You can't possibly know everything. Its like the bolzmann-principle where a lot of particles even though simple in themselves, creates a complex system and you have to describe it using wave functions, but this is merely a convenient way due to ignorance because our systems cannot comprehend all the tiny particles (there's billions of them) and describe them individually, the wave functions is not the reality. Reality consists of tiny particles bumping into each other. That's it, there is nothing more to the universe.

[TimeSeeker]

The universe still do this complex stuff using simple principles.

Then so do organisms.

Yes. But many simple interactions creates a whole that is complex. The reason you must use Hickams dictum ie. in medicine or elsewhere, is because of ignorance. You can't possibly know everything. Its like the bolzmann-principle where a lot of particles even though simple in themselves, creates a complex system and you have to describe it using wave functions, but this is merely a convenient way due to ignorance, the wave functions is not the reality. Reality consists of tiny particles bumping into each other. That's it, there is nothing more to the universe.

You don't understand complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity

Or the implications behind Quantum Mechanics: Shut up and calculate!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_class

This thing you call 'ignorance' is a resource bound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexit ... rce_bounds

We don't have enough time/energy/memory to do the calculation!

[philosopher]

Then so do organisms.

Yes. But many simple interactions creates a whole that is complex. The reason you must use Hickams dictum ie. in medicine or elsewhere, is because of ignorance. You can't possibly know everything. Its like the bolzmann-principle where a lot of particles even though simple in themselves, creates a complex system and you have to describe it using wave functions, but this is merely a convenient way due to ignorance, the wave functions is not the reality. Reality consists of tiny particles bumping into each other. That's it, there is nothing more to the universe.

You don't understand complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity

Or the implications behind Quantum Mechanics: Shut up and calculate!

There are billions of individual particles interacting. This creates complexity. It's as simple as that.
The reason you have to make use of ie. wave functions etc. to handle this problem, is due to ignorance - you HAVE to ignore the individual particles, and just handle the crowd as a whole to make sense of things.

But this method does not describe reality, which is simply put, tiny particles bumping into each other.

Add to that, that we are humans. We see patterns all the time, even where there's none.

We don't have enough time/energy/memory to do the calculation!

Exactly. But our lack of time, energy or memory which limits our calculations, certainly does not mean that when we ignore the calculations of individual particles, we get reality. We don't. And we certainly don't get reality by using wave functions etc.

[TimeSeeker]

There are billions of individual particles interacting. This creates complexity. It's as simple as that.

Yes! And that is not simple. That IS complex!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blum_axioms

The reason you have to make use of ie. wave functions etc. to handle this problem, is due to ignorance - you HAVE to ignore the individual particles, and just handle the crowd as a whole to make sense of things.

No. It is not! It is due to resource constraints.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexit ... rce_bounds

We do not have enough TIME or SPACE (SPACETIME!!!!!) to do the calculations.

That's not ignorance - that's "just the laws of physics".

Ignorance is you mistaking the complex for the simple.

Educate yourself about TIME and SPACE complexity here: https://www.hackerearth.com/practice/ba ... /tutorial/

If this is what you call "ignorance" then it's trivial to solve! Just give humans more TIME (faster CPU!) and more SPACE (more memory!)

[philosopher]

There are billions of individual particles interacting. This creates complexity. It's as simple as that.

Yes! And that is not simple. That IS complex!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blum_axioms

The reason you have to make use of ie. wave functions etc. to handle this problem, is due to ignorance - you HAVE to ignore the individual particles, and just handle the crowd as a whole to make sense of things.

No. It is not! It is due to resource constraints.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexit ... rce_bounds

We do not have enough TIME or SPACE (SPACETIME!!!!!) to do the calculations.

That's not ignorance - that's "just the laws of physics".

Ignorance is you mistaking the complex for the simple.

Educate yourself about TIME and SPACE complexity here: https://www.hackerearth.com/practice/ba ... /tutorial/

If this is what you call "ignorance" then it's trivial to solve! Just give humans more TIME (faster CPU!) and more SPACE (more memory!)

What I call ignorance is the need to ignore the individual particles, due to lack of space and time - or as you put it, CPU and memory.

Lets say you computer cannot run the newest video game, due to lack of CPU/Memory, and you don't have the money to buy a faster computer.

Then you HAVE to ignore the newest video game. But that doesn't mean it does not exist.

The same with individual particles and complexity. We use wave functions etc. to describe what is complex, but this is due to our needy ignorance of the individual particles flying and bumping around, simply because we cannot calculate all of them. So we use wave functions to describe the behavior.

People then take it for granted, that wave functions describe reality. It doesn't. Wave functions are inventions, human inventions to have a convenient way of seeing patterns where there are none, in order to understand what you call complexity. But the universe does not care about waves or complexity. It cares about nothing. It just happens to be filled with tiny particles bumping into each other. And that's all there is.

Using wave functions to describe complexity is convenient.
But that does not give you the correct picture of reality. Quite the contrary, you get the wrong image. That is what I call ignorance, it is not ignorance as in "I don't WANT to understand", but the ignorance as in: "I HAVE to ignore reality, in order to understand just a tiny fraction of it".

[TimeSeeker]

Using wave functions to describe complexity is convenient.
But that does not give you the correct picture of reality. Quite the contrary, you get the wrong image. That is what I call ignorance, it is not ignorance as in "I don't WANT to understand", but the ignorance as in: "I HAVE to ignore reality, in order to understand just a tiny fraction of it".

OK, you seem to recognise that your 'ignorance' is a function of a system's complexity.
The simpler the system - the more of it you CAN understand.
The more complex the system - the less you CAN understand.

You also seem to recognise that you have to leave out (ignore) "some details" so that you can gain a tiny fraction of "understanding". This is sufficient to move us forward.

On the complexity continuum reality is significantly more complex than a human body.

If doctors use Hickam's dictum to understand human bodies (simple systems), why are you using Occam's razor to understand reality (complex system)?

What you call "ignorance" has a much better name in logic. Incompleteness.

Wave functions are incomplete descriptions of the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)

[seeds]

People then take it for granted, that wave functions describe reality. It doesn't. Wave functions are inventions, human inventions to have a convenient way of seeing patterns where there are none...

Based on the success of quantum mechanics, the wave nature of reality seems to be more of a discovery than an invention.

Nevertheless, until you can give a precise and irrefutable description of exactly what it is that appears to be “waving” as one singular electron passes through the two slits of the Double Slit experiment, then you have no business asserting what the wave function does not describe.
_______

[QuantumT]

The wave function is simply energy/matter with a higher potential. We could call it free, or even better, "non-determined" energy.

Don't forget that the photon becomes a physical, tangible particle when measured. Many physicalists tend to ignore that, because it suggests something woo'ey going on.

[A_Seagull]

I'm really fascinated by the double slit experiment. Turns out that if you fire particles - electrons or even molecules at double slits, one at a time, and wait 1 sec. or more before you fire the next particle, after some time it will create an interference pattern on the screen.

How can individual particles not yet fired somehow "know" where to land according to the particles already fired, and create the overall picture of an interference pattern?

I mean, it seems like they are communicating with each other - particles fired "tells" other particles yet to be fired, where to land...

Is this evidence of the so-called entanglement? I mean, usually entanglement is understood as that if two particles once close to one another, becoming separated they remain entangled with their spin.

But doesn't the double slit experiment prove that all particles in the entire universe are somehow linked/entangled since the big bang?

Maybe there is a universal wave, instead of individual particles being interpreted as waves, maybe everything in the entire universe is one gigantic wave of real particles entangled?

Or am I talking gibberish?

What did I get wrong and more importantly, how did I get this wrong?

Yes you have a slight misunderstanding regarding the experiment. The particles do not interfere nor interact with previous or succeeding particles.

The particles interfere with themselves. They are best modelled as a wave which goes through both slits. Each slit then acts as a wave source. The waves emanating from each slit then interfere with each other. This results in a sequence of highs and lows at the detecting screen. These highs and lows, can be considered to represent the probability that the detector will detect a particle at that particular point. It requires a whole lot of particles to build up the pattern so that it can be seen. Each particle is entirely independent of every other.

Hope this helps.

[seeds]

The wave function is simply energy/matter with a higher potential. We could call it free, or even better, "non-determined" energy.

That is an allusion to what Heisenberg was suggesting in the following quote lifted from the book - Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics by physicist Nick Herbert:

“The probability wave...means a tendency for something. It’s a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia in Aristotle’s philosophy. It introduces something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.”

However, in deference and defense of Einstein’s concerns about how all of that implies an unacceptable “dicey-ness” to reality, the quantum foundation of the universe must surely exist in a fixed and organized fashion (as opposed to “non-determined” energy). Otherwise, why else would the phenomenal features of the universe always appear in their highly specific forms every time we looked?

The point is that Einstein and Heisenberg were both right.

In other words, Einstein’s assertion that “God does not play dice” is correct in that the quantum realm is obviously stable and founded upon logical principles.

And Heisenberg is correct in that the quantum realm doesn’t seem to be as “real” as the reality that emerges from its informationally-based constituents.

Clearly, we have a metaphorical model for what’s taking place - a model that is literally staring us in the face as we type our replies.
_______

[philosopher]

I'm really fascinated by the double slit experiment. Turns out that if you fire particles - electrons or even molecules at double slits, one at a time, and wait 1 sec. or more before you fire the next particle, after some time it will create an interference pattern on the screen.

How can individual particles not yet fired somehow "know" where to land according to the particles already fired, and create the overall picture of an interference pattern?

I mean, it seems like they are communicating with each other - particles fired "tells" other particles yet to be fired, where to land...

Is this evidence of the so-called entanglement? I mean, usually entanglement is understood as that if two particles once close to one another, becoming separated they remain entangled with their spin.

But doesn't the double slit experiment prove that all particles in the entire universe are somehow linked/entangled since the big bang?

Maybe there is a universal wave, instead of individual particles being interpreted as waves, maybe everything in the entire universe is one gigantic wave of real particles entangled?

Or am I talking gibberish?

What did I get wrong and more importantly, how did I get this wrong?

Yes you have a slight misunderstanding regarding the experiment. The particles do not interfere nor interact with previous or succeeding particles.

The particles interfere with themselves. They are best modelled as a wave which goes through both slits. Each slit then acts as a wave source. The waves emanating from each slit then interfere with each other. This results in a sequence of highs and lows at the detecting screen. These highs and lows, can be considered to represent the probability that the detector will detect a particle at that particular point. It requires a whole lot of particles to build up the pattern so that it can be seen. Each particle is entirely independent of every other.

Hope this helps.

What you say, contradicts what PBS Space Time says in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo

[A_Seagull]

I'm really fascinated by the double slit experiment. Turns out that if you fire particles - electrons or even molecules at double slits, one at a time, and wait 1 sec. or more before you fire the next particle, after some time it will create an interference pattern on the screen.

How can individual particles not yet fired somehow "know" where to land according to the particles already fired, and create the overall picture of an interference pattern?

I mean, it seems like they are communicating with each other - particles fired "tells" other particles yet to be fired, where to land...

Is this evidence of the so-called entanglement? I mean, usually entanglement is understood as that if two particles once close to one another, becoming separated they remain entangled with their spin.

But doesn't the double slit experiment prove that all particles in the entire universe are somehow linked/entangled since the big bang?

Maybe there is a universal wave, instead of individual particles being interpreted as waves, maybe everything in the entire universe is one gigantic wave of real particles entangled?

Or am I talking gibberish?

What did I get wrong and more importantly, how did I get this wrong?

Yes you have a slight misunderstanding regarding the experiment. The particles do not interfere nor interact with previous or succeeding particles.

The particles interfere with themselves. They are best modelled as a wave which goes through both slits. Each slit then acts as a wave source. The waves emanating from each slit then interfere with each other. This results in a sequence of highs and lows at the detecting screen. These highs and lows, can be considered to represent the probability that the detector will detect a particle at that particular point. It requires a whole lot of particles to build up the pattern so that it can be seen. Each particle is entirely independent of every other.

Hope this helps.

What you say, contradicts what PBS Space Time says in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo

Why should I care? I generally don't follow links, and certainly not to videos,

If what I posted doesn't aid your understanding, well that is absolutely fine with me.

If you want to learn about the 2 slit experiment then wikipedia would be a better source of information than youtube. Or even better.. read a book. Or better still do your experimentation.. its not hard to see the diffraction pattern using light.