Double Slit Experiment

[Noax]

And you can always trust PBS Space Time, because PBS Space Time is, although slightly popular science, in the more serious business of popular science.

It explains what actually happens, it is non-fiction, serious and trustworthy.

If it says what you say here in this post, it is doing metaphysics, not science. And very non-mainstream metaphysics at that.
Science says what will be observed. It does not assert what actually happens as you do below.

If you fire a single electron, one at a time at the 2 slits, you still get the interference pattern after firing many of those single particles, one at a time.

This is why I am talking about the thing that the first particle "tells" the second particle where to land on the screen, to create the overall picture of an interference pattern.

The PBS video says this? At what time? It is a 13 minute video and I'm not going to search it.

What you see is an interference pattern. You shouldn't. You should instead see a chaotic, random non-pattern.
But fire billions of them this way, and you see an interference pattern.

This means that those particles have been able to "communicate" across time and space telling the next particle where it should "prefer" to land.

"So, I landed here. Now, you, yes you next guy, you should have a higher likelyhood of landing over there instead. And you the third guy, you should probably land over there." This seems chaotic at first, but with many of those chaotically randomly chosed landings, they make up a pattern - an interference pattern.

This means no such thing. The points where the photons land is not random, nor related to the prior particle landing in any way, as you suggest here. The probabilities where any single particle lands can be computed from the wave function of the particle, and is unrelated to the wave function of other particles. QM says this. It is not a metaphysical interpretation. Given this fact, an interference pattern will result from a large number of samples, even if each data point is taken from different setups in different labs, each providing only one data point. The assert that the particles communicate is unfounded since they don't need to communicate.

If I have a bag of dice with 6 printed on 5 sides, and 1 printed on the other, the dice need not communicate with each other to come up 6 most of the time, despite the result of a single roll being 'randomly' 1 or 6 each time.

[philosopher]

This means no such thing. The points where the photons land is not random, nor related to the prior particle landing in any way, as you suggest here. The probabilities where any single particle lands can be computed from the wave function of the particle, and is unrelated to the wave function of other particles. QM says this. It is not a metaphysical interpretation. Given this fact, an interference pattern will result from a large number of samples, even if each data point is taken from different setups in different labs, each providing only one data point. The assert that the particles communicate is unfounded since they don't need to communicate.

If I have a bag of dice with 6 printed on 5 sides, and 1 printed on the other, the dice need not communicate with each other to come up 6 most of the time, despite the result of a single roll being 'randomly' 1 or 6 each time.

Thank you very much. Now I finally got it!

[philosopher]

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.

Actually, I just came across this video which explains singularities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7EvLhOK08

- check it out!

[rmuszynski]

I have been working on a deterministic interpretation of the experiment which is now good enough to have others look at it but I'm a bit concerned that someone might steal my idea so any advice on how to proceed to avoid that would be appreciated. I know you can do things like send a registered post letter to someone that proves the existence of an idea and proves it existed by that date but I would love to know if it can be shown safely to this forum or some other body - a physics one being an obvious choice I suppose - in terms of proving the interpretation is my own.
It could be that simply putting it on this forum will cover that in some way and in doing so the date/time is registered and that might be enough (although I doubt it).
I am humble enough to know it's unlikely to be right considering the many minds that have considered it, many very famous as we all know. It would also be great to prove Einstain and De Broglie and Bohm were all right it could have a deterministic solution and Pilot Wave theory was a good attempt re the latter two although De Broglie did later get persuaded over to the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr and others.

[QuantumT]

Actually, I just came across this video which explains singularities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7EvLhOK08

- check it out!

Thank you for the reference, but I know it already. Singularities are mathematical constructs with new rules. The Big Bang was one. Black holes are too. Singularities are things that change the mathematical rules we apply to a system.

That is why any reality beyond ours is a singularity. If there is one. You see, I'm not saying that we are simulated. I'm just saying that science suggests it very strongly. If you refuse to listen, no harm or foul. But me, I listen. Very closely!

[seeds]

_______

To me, the Double Slit Experiment represents the empirically-derived discovery (more at causation) of a crack in the heretofore impenetrable wall that once separated materialism from idealism.

Now I realize that it’s highly debatable, but by reason of the possibility that consciousness might be involved in the collapse of the wave function,...

(thus resulting in the transformation of immaterial waves of energy [Heisenberg’s “potentia”] into positionally-fixed material forms, as per the implications of the D.S. experiment)

...it therefore seems as though hardcore materialism - through its own investigations - may have unmasked the folly of its blinkered assumptions and sown the seeds of its own demise.
_______

[Atla]

I have been working on a deterministic interpretation of the experiment which is now good enough to have others look at it but I'm a bit concerned that someone might steal my idea so any advice on how to proceed to avoid that would be appreciated. I know you can do things like send a registered post letter to someone that proves the existence of an idea and proves it existed by that date but I would love to know if it can be shown safely to this forum or some other body - a physics one being an obvious choice I suppose - in terms of proving the interpretation is my own.
It could be that simply putting it on this forum will cover that in some way and in doing so the date/time is registered and that might be enough (although I doubt it).
I am humble enough to know it's unlikely to be right considering the many minds that have considered it, many very famous as we all know. It would also be great to prove Einstain and De Broglie and Bohm were all right it could have a deterministic solution and Pilot Wave theory was a good attempt re the latter two although De Broglie did later get persuaded over to the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr and others.

I don't think putting it on this forum would prevent it from being stolen. But I also don't think that anyone would steal it, as there are already dozens/hundreds/thousands of interpretations and ideas out there, probably all of them wrong in many ways at once. Your interpretation would be seen as just one more among the many, even if it happens to be correct.

I favour the deterministic line too, however to me, metaphysically speaking, this Pilot Wave Theory only seems to be making things worse. It merely replaces the unexplained mistery with another unexplained mistery: the pilot wave. I'm much more into the MWI, but I think it needs to be modified very heavily. Nevertheless, the deterministic line of thinking seems to be becoming more mainstream nowadays.

[Atla]

...it therefore seems as though hardcore materialism - through its own investigations - may have unmasked the folly of its blinkered assumptions and sown the seeds of its own demise.

It's been nearly a century now that hardcore materialism was destroyed. It's a little sad that many still haven't received the death notification.

[QuantumT]

It's been nearly a century now that hardcore materialism was destroyed. It's a little sad that many still haven't received the death notification.

[rmuszynski]

Thanks for responses. I perhaps should not have said pilot theory was a 'good attempt' as I am also aware it raises the difficult question of how the pilot wave exits etc.
I have a 12 slide PowerPoint presentation on it but, just in words, my explanation is as follows;
A wave is formed each time a particle passes through a slit. The waves have a much longer duration than the particles that create them and - even when the particles are fired through alternate slits - last long enough to interfere constructively with the waves created by the other particles. After creating a new wave to add to the wave interference pattern each particle then continues on towards the screen using one of the 'lanes of constructive interference' (as I like to call them) as a trajectory path to follow on its way to the screen.
Thus, the pattern of the dots on the screen looks like a constructive wave interference pattern simply because it is a projection of one represented with particles.

PS - the double slit experiment has been repeated with the same result using way bigger 'particles' than photons and electrons - i.e. whole molecules like Buckminsterfullerenes ('buckyballs')and also other molecules of up to 58 and 114 atoms.

[seeds]

I have a 12 slide PowerPoint presentation on it but, just in words, my explanation is as follows;
A wave is formed each time a particle passes through a slit.

Hi rmuszynski (and welcome to the forum ).

A wave is formed out of what?

What exactly is it that is waving? – That’s the crux of the mystery.

The waves have a much longer duration than the particles that create them and - even when the particles are fired through alternate slits - last long enough to interfere constructively with the waves created by the other particles.

That’s an interesting approach to the problem.

However, they could fire a single electron through the slits - once every two weeks - and the interference pattern would still develop on the screen.

Something tells me that the residual (long lasting) waves that you are counting on to support your theory would have dissipated in those biweekly interims. Wouldn't you agree?
_______

[Atla]

I think of it like this (but it always changes after a while, and maybe tomorrow I'll think something else, after nearly 10 years I still can't figure QM out): the particle behaviour and the wavelike behaviour are two manifestations of the same general behaviour.

The general behaviour is this: a particle is usually "spread out", "distributed" all over the universe. It's usually partially here and partially there and partially over there etc.

It can be distributed in an infinite number of ways throughout the universe. Sometimes it's spread out evenly; sometimes it's more concentrated in some places and less concentrated in some places (this is the most common form by an almost infinite margin); sometimes it's spread out in some places and not spread out in other places; and sometimes it's concentrated into a single piece and not spread out anywhere else.

The last one is what we humans normally see, we call it the "classical world", "particle behaviour". If the particle is concentrated into a singular point, it can't interfere with itself. The central question then becomes: why and how do we see the particle behaviour, even though it's almost infinitely unlikely? And why do particles instantly switch to wavelike behaviour every time they "can", from our perspective?

As for wavelike behaviour: well, particles are spread out all over the universe in every possible way at the same time. And so these infinite possibilities interfere with each other infinitely. But from our perspective, most of that is negligible or cancels out. So when it comes to the Double slit for example, what we see is that most possible paths lead through both slits at the same time, which creates the illusion of two waves originating from the slits.

So all in all I think: our familiar classical world, with particles in one piece, is just an almost infinitely unlikely manifestation of general quantum behaviour. That's why the duality idea, the illusion of duality in QM is extremely misleading, just the tip of the iceberg.

[rmuszynski]

Some fascinating thoughts on the QM world Atla and some think there is a QM effect even on the macro level but then it becomes tiny and negligible.

Thanks for your comments seeds and welcoming me to this forum. Yes, of course I agree the waves will dissipate if it's been done on extended time spans - of even lots of seconds, never mind longer than that.
Regarding what the waves are made of; as you know waves are not really made of anything but they are a way that energy propagates as an oscillating series of nodes and anti nodes of varying intensity from one place to another be it in a medium like air or water or even a vacuum. My thought is that the particles maybe have an electromagnetic wave component (as par James Clerk Maxwell) that interacts with the narrowness of the slits, diffracting part of their wave energy as they pass through the slits. That apart though, if you are telling me it has been done with large time spans between particles then sorry I was unaware of that and I do need to go back the drawing board.

[Atla]

Some fascinating thoughts on the QM world Atla and some think there is a QM effect even on the macro level but then it becomes tiny and negligible.

Thanks for your comments seeds and welcoming me to this forum. Yes, of course I agree the waves will dissipate if it's been done on extended time spans - of even lots of seconds, never mind longer than that.
Regarding what the waves are made of; as you know waves are not really made of anything but they are a way that energy propagates as an oscillating series of nodes and anti nodes of varying intensity from one place to another be it in a medium like air or water or even a vacuum. My thought is that the particles maybe have an electromagnetic wave component (as par James Clerk Maxwell) that interacts with the narrowness of the slits, diffracting part of their wave energy as they pass through the slits. That apart though, if you are telling me it has been done with large time spans between particles then sorry I was unaware of that and I do need to go back the drawing board.

Your idea seems to be similar to the idea in the opening post in this topic. But the individually fired particles don't seem to interact with each other at all. You could fire just one particle no more, and it will still arrive at a position consistent with a wave pattern.

[Arising_uk]

With thanks to uwot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ