minkwe wrote:Then you may ask, why do particles prefer to go into the maxima rather than the minima, and that is what my explanation will answer (in fact it is not my explanation, it has been known but ignored since the beginning of quantum theory. I guess it was not mysterious enough for the copenhageners).
jreed wrote:Although you don't realize it, this is Lande's theory. Look him up on the web. If you do some research on this, you will find it has already been researched and investigated. He wrote many books on it but it never became a popular interpretation of quantum mechanical effects. You don't have to answer any questions for me. I have several of his books where these questions are explained with his theory. I read these books, but the same problems of understanding quantum mechanical effects occur in his theory, except in a different form. As someone told me once, that's conservation of trouble: You can move trouble around, but never get rid of it.
gill1109 wrote:minkwe wrote:Then you may ask, why do particles prefer to go into the maxima rather than the minima, and that is what my explanation will answer (in fact it is not my explanation, it has been known but ignored since the beginning of quantum theory. I guess it was not mysterious enough for the copenhageners).
Could you give a reference or name to the explanation which was known but ignored since the beginning of quantum theory? I am not intending to weigh into the discussion; I would just like to know whose approach you are following. I know of quite a few nice explanations and am just wondering which is your favourite. I agree, the two slit experiment is not really so mysterious at all ...
Ben6993 wrote:This is not a Bell simulation thread, but does a diffraction effect as above have any relevance to the Bell's simulations? The Bell's simulations use uniform randomness of an angle, or on a sphere, but not all the random data points become particle pairs. That seems like a diffractionless scenario. It will also be possible to generate non-uniform random data on a sphere. Ie a sort of diffraction pattern sampling. For example trying to simulate random points on a dimpled golf ball, where the points in the hollows are sampled less often than points on the raised parts. Maybe such a sampling would lead to fewer wasted data points. Or maybe not.
Ben6993 wrote:This is not a Bell simulation thread, but does a diffraction effect as above have any relevance to the Bell's simulations? The Bell's simulations use uniform randomness of an angle, or on a sphere, but not all the random data points become particle pairs. That seems like a diffractionless scenario. It will also be possible to generate non-uniform random data on a sphere. Ie a sort of diffraction pattern sampling. For example trying to simulate random points on a dimpled golf ball, where the points in the hollows are sampled less often than points on the raised parts. Maybe such a sampling would lead to fewer wasted data points. Or maybe not.
minkwe wrote:1) quanta/particles can transfer momentum to the walls if the slits.
2) The amount of momentum transferred, determines the angle of deflection of the particle.
3) Transfered momentum is quantized. Therefore the particles are deflected into discrete directions.
4) The allowed directions are determined by the relationship between the normal modes if the slit system and the frequency of the quanta/particle.
5) Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are different.
6) The pattern produced, and the slit system producing it have a dual relationship. They can be expressed as Fourier transforms of each other.
gill1109 wrote:minkwe wrote:5) Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are different.
(5) says that a particle at the slit on the right feels if the slit on the left is open or closed. Reminds me of Bell-CHSH experiment loopholes.
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:minkwe wrote:1) quanta/particles can transfer momentum to the walls if the slits.
2) The amount of momentum transferred, determines the angle of deflection of the particle.
3) Transfered momentum is quantized. Therefore the particles are deflected into discrete directions.
4) The allowed directions are determined by the relationship between the normal modes if the slit system and the frequency of the quanta/particle.
5) Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are different.
6) The pattern produced, and the slit system producing it have a dual relationship. They can be expressed as Fourier transforms of each other.
(5) says that a particle at the slit on the right feels if the slit on the left is open or closed. Reminds me of Bell-CHSH experiment loopholes.
Can you read?
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:minkwe wrote:5) Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are different.
(5) says that a particle at the slit on the right feels if the slit on the left is open or closed. Reminds me of Bell-CHSH experiment loopholes.
It is puzzling how anyone who understands English could reasonably infer such a thing from the statement given. Astounding indeed!
FrediFizzx wrote:minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:Michel's (5): "Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are differen"
says that a particle at the slit on the right feels if the slit on the left is open or closed. Reminds me of Bell-CHSH experiment loopholes.
It is puzzling how anyone who understands English could reasonably infer such a thing from the statement given. Astounding indeed!
Yes it is quite astounding but then Richard is not a physicist so I would think he is just making up stuff here.
minkwe wrote:jreed wrote:Although you don't realize it, this is Lande's theory. Look him up on the web. If you do some research on this, you will find it has already been researched and investigated. He wrote many books on it but it never became a popular interpretation of quantum mechanical effects. You don't have to answer any questions for me. I have several of his books where these questions are explained with his theory. I read these books, but the same problems of understanding quantum mechanical effects occur in his theory, except in a different form. As someone told me once, that's conservation of trouble: You can move trouble around, but never get rid of it.
Rather than lump it up as Lande's why don't you ask specific questions that you have issues with the explanation so far. Or do you think you know exactly what I'm going to say? What is the trouble that you say is being moved around? I'm not familiar with Lande's theory but you appear to be so why don't you state what the problem is with Lande's theory.
I assumed you were genuinely interested in the explanation. Are you?
jreed wrote:What I was referring to as "trouble" was moving the quantum weirdness from the electron to the slits. Previously the probability amplitude of the electron was spread out, based on its wave function, and the probability of arrival at the screen is computed by squaring the absolute value of this function. Now, the point electron is somehow interacting with the whole slit assembly. This requires a non-local interaction which goes against the realist assumptions. This was one of the complaints against Lande's explanation.
jreed wrote:Back where we were a few days ago...
Thanks for those references. I'm familiar with Duane's theory as it's a cornerstone in Lande's theory, and all this is familiar from Lande's theory. I'm in agreement with your explanation of the diffraction of electrons. This is all part of Lande's theory. I've always thought his theory was interesting and needs to be more thoroughly investigated.
What I was referring to as "trouble" was moving the quantum weirdness from the electron to the slits. Previously the probability amplitude of the electron was spread out, based on its wave function, and the probability of arrival at the screen is computed by squaring the absolute value of this function. Now, the point electron is somehow interacting with the whole slit assembly. This requires a non-local interaction which goes against the realist assumptions. This was one of the complaints against Lande's explanation.
gill1109 wrote:Michel's (5) was "Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are different". Which effectively says that a particle at the slit on the right can feel if the slit on the left is open or closed.
minkwe wrote:Now you say the "trouble" in my explanation is that an electron, is somehow interacting with a whole slit assembly. Do you know what normal modes are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_modes)? Have you ever heard or seen Newton's cradle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle)? Look at the animation and tell me if the left most pendulum is interacting with the whole device or just the ball next to it. Is Newton's cradle mysterious to you? In fact, you don't even have to look far. When you press down a key on your keyboard, what is interacting? Is your whole finger interacting with the whole key, or are only the molecules which come into contact interacting with each other? Is your finger non-local/non-realist? Is Newton's cradle non-local/non-realist?
I don't see the "trouble" you are talking about.
jreed wrote:Here's the trouble. When you say normal modes are excited in the slit assembly, normal modes of what? Are you saying that a single electron can excite normal modes in a macroscopic object?
Some possibilities are: Normal modes of motion, normal modes of the electromagnetic field (but we also see neutron diffraction), maybe normal modes of the aether, if you're still a non-believer in relativity. There aren't many other things to excite.
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:Michel's (5) was "Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are different". Which effectively says that a particle at the slit on the right can feel if the slit on the left is open or closed.
Wrong. It does not "effectively" say anything close to what you say at all. Point (5) says absolutely nothing about particles. Let alone, particles having feelings. It says simply a well known and uncontroversial fact that double slits have different normal modes than single slits. But based on your penchant for mysticism, I'm not surprised you would interpret it that way, it reflects more your imagination than what was actually written. You could have asked for clarification if it wasn't clear to you. But no, you just had to introduce loopholes into something which has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 179 guests