Page 1 of 5

### Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:49 pm
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?

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:28 pm
No one knows, you are free to come up with your own interpretation.

One idea (out of dozens/hundreds) is that the entire universe is a fully entangled superposition, it's the sum of all possible states. And "you" by virtue of "looking at it" (in other words there may be a looping phenomenon within the universe), restrict how the rest of the universe appears to you. This is automatic because of entanglement. You always see the appropriate parts of the universal superposition.

So if you can't know which slit the particle goes through, then it goes through both.
If you can know which slit the particle goes through, then it's restricted to go through one or the other.

Of course this doesn't solve the heart of the problem, but it's still a better starting picture than most interpretations, I think.

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:22 pm

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:46 pm
The only model of reality where quantum weirdness makes perfect sense is in a simulated/virtual one.

In that model there is no weirdness. Even entanglement makes perfect sense, as a second observer effect. It was probably not intended by the makers, but when we observe, we lock particles in their position, so that two observed particles become as one, as long as they are both observed. In that model, entanglement ends when the observation ends. So you can't stop observing without ending the entanglement.

The beauty of this interpretation is that duality and non-locality are the exact same thing, but expressed in different ways.

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
QuantumT wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:46 pm
The only model of reality where quantum weirdness makes perfect sense is in a simulated/virtual one.

In that model there is no weirdness. Even entanglement makes perfect sense, as a second observer effect. It was probably not intended by the makers, but when we observe, we lock particles in their position, so that two observed particles become as one, as long as they are both observed. In that model, entanglement ends when the observation ends. So you can't stop observing without ending the entanglement.

The beauty of this interpretation is that duality and non-locality are the exact same thing, but expressed in different ways.
The Simulation Hypothesis fails due to Occam's Razor. If you have to explain something, it should be done so that it requires the least possible assumptions. Simulation requires a good deal more assumptions for it to work ie. intelligent life outside our universe. And then you have to explain where they came from. And where their ancestors came from - and so on. This is what Occams Razor prohibits.

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:44 pm
I know of the de-broglie bohm theory. It's just that it seems more plausible explanation than the Copenhagen Interpretation, but at the same time, it creates some other wierdness and it is not as simple/beautiful in terms of math, because of the guiding equations - pilot waves.

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:51 pm
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
The Simulation Hypothesis fails due to Occam's Razor. If you have to explain something, it should be done so that it requires the least possible assumptions. Simulation requires a good deal more assumptions for it to work ie. intelligent life outside our universe. And then you have to explain where they came from. And where their ancestors came from - and so on. This is what Occams Razor prohibits.
I disagree. It's not more complicated than a multiverse filled with quantum fluctuation. Both require some degree of education and flexibility to be understood. And besides, Occam's Razor is not a rule, it's a guide.

I see any ontological model as a singularity, so, as you know, singularities have their own rules. Rules beyond Occam's Razor. Like black holes.

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:59 pm
QuantumT wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:51 pm
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
The Simulation Hypothesis fails due to Occam's Razor. If you have to explain something, it should be done so that it requires the least possible assumptions. Simulation requires a good deal more assumptions for it to work ie. intelligent life outside our universe. And then you have to explain where they came from. And where their ancestors came from - and so on. This is what Occams Razor prohibits.
I disagree. It's not more complicated than a multiverse filled with quantum fluctuation. Both require some degree of education and flexibility to be understood.
Occams Razor has nothing to do with people's abilities to understand something. It has to do with the required number of assumptions and sub-assumptions (assumptions required for the other assumptions to work).

Example:

If you have a apple falling to the ground - what you do is to say that someone dropped the apple from above. This fails to occams razor, because you assume there was "someone" dropping the apple.

The maths are given by Newton to calculate how the apple falls from a given height. If you assume there was "someone" dropping the apple, the math requires more assumptions - that is to not only describe an extra force (someone first holding then dropping the apple) - you also have to explain how this force interacts and how it works for it to make any sense (ie. describing all the cells in the body of that "someone" if we assume a living being).

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:03 pm
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:59 pm
Occams Razor has nothing to do with people's abilities to understand something. It has to do with the required number of assumptions and sub-assumptions (assumptions required for the other assumptions to work).
Occam's Razor was not intended for singularities. The Razor only works when the parameters follow the same rules.

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:15 pm
QuantumT wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:03 pm
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:59 pm
Occams Razor has nothing to do with people's abilities to understand something. It has to do with the required number of assumptions and sub-assumptions (assumptions required for the other assumptions to work).
Occam's Razor was not intended for singularities. The Razor only works when the parameters follow the same rules.
Black Holes and singularities match perfectly well with Occams Razor, because Einstein's theory of relativity perfectly explains - and predicts black holes and singularities. The maths behind general theory of relativity is already THE simplest explanation for the black hole singularity.

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:24 pm
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:15 pm
Black Holes and singularities match perfectly well with Occams Razor, because Einstein's theory of relativity perfectly explains - and predicts black holes and singularities. The maths behind general theory of relativity is already THE simplest explanation for the black hole singularity.
Then you haven't fully understood them. Have you done research on the holographic principle?

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:00 am
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:44 pm
I know of the de-broglie bohm theory. It's just that it seems more plausible explanation than the Copenhagen Interpretation, but at the same time, it creates some other wierdness and it is not as simple/beautiful in terms of math, because of the guiding equations - pilot waves.
To bring any pre-suppositions whatsoever about how the universe should be (simple, beautiful, symmetrical, plausible, implausible, finite, infinite) is to be guilty of bringing your expectations to the table of science.

The universe owes us NOTHING. Shut up and calculate.

Occam's razor is just a heuristic. It trades off precision in favour of immediate results. It's a rational, economic decision. We are monkeys with primitive brains - not supercomputers.

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:46 pm
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
QuantumT wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:46 pm
The only model of reality where quantum weirdness makes perfect sense is in a simulated/virtual one.

In that model there is no weirdness. Even entanglement makes perfect sense, as a second observer effect. It was probably not intended by the makers, but when we observe, we lock particles in their position, so that two observed particles become as one, as long as they are both observed. In that model, entanglement ends when the observation ends. So you can't stop observing without ending the entanglement.

The beauty of this interpretation is that duality and non-locality are the exact same thing, but expressed in different ways.
The Simulation Hypothesis fails due to Occam's Razor.
Nothing fails because of Occam's Razor.
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
If you have to explain something, it should be done so that it requires the least possible assumptions.
Note your use of the word 'should' - that does not entail your statement is a definitive requirement.
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
Simulation requires a good deal more assumptions for it to work ie. intelligent life outside our universe.
No, not necessarily outside our universe, just beyond our perception of reality.

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:49 pm
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
The Simulation Hypothesis fails due to Occam's Razor. If you have to explain something, it should be done so that it requires the least possible assumptions. Simulation requires a good deal more assumptions for it to work ie. intelligent life outside our universe.
Given the choice of Occam's razor and Hickam's dictum. How do you justify your choice?

The Universe can be as simple OR as complex as it damn well pleases!
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
And then you have to explain where they came from. And where their ancestors came from - and so on.
That's why science doesn't bother itself with explanation. It suffers from infinite regress. Prediction is sufficient.

Least science has to explain where "energy" comes from
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
This is what Occams Razor prohibits.
That's the first time I have seen anybody claim Occam's razor was prescriptive!

If doctors were to treat it as prescriptive a whole lot of patients might end up dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickam's_dictum

### Re: Double Slit Experiment

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 2:35 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:49 pm
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
The Simulation Hypothesis fails due to Occam's Razor. If you have to explain something, it should be done so that it requires the least possible assumptions. Simulation requires a good deal more assumptions for it to work ie. intelligent life outside our universe.
Given the choice of Occam's razor and Hickam's dictum. How do you justify your choice?

The Universe can be as simple OR as complex as it damn well pleases!
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
And then you have to explain where they came from. And where their ancestors came from - and so on.
That's why science doesn't bother itself with explanation. It suffers from infinite regress. Prediction is sufficient.

Least science has to explain where "energy" comes from
philosopher wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:40 pm
This is what Occams Razor prohibits.
That's the first time I have seen anybody claim Occam's razor was prescriptive!

If doctors were to treat it as prescriptive a whole lot of patients might end up dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickam's_dictum
Hickam's dictum only applies to complex objects, like organisms. Not the origins of the universe, which arise from simple stuff.

Imagine the universe as a cone. At the tip of the cone, we have the beginning, origins of everything. This is simple and explains well using Occam's razor.

Then as the universe progress, it becomes more complex, and you can use Hickam's dictum.

And yet, even though the universe as a whole is complex, it is still running using simple principles, which - only together - creates the complexity. So Occam's razor is still applicable to large-scale situations.