/sci/ - Science & Math

This is the system. The parameter for the simulation are on the op. All collisions are elastic.

>>10197019
Post the code

>>10197016
Wow... there’s not much I can say.... op is not a faggot... well done....

And what happens in your classical case when you cover one slit?

>>10197016
Tooker, is this you?

>>10197019

Go on.

Ok maybe you found something funky about one experiment but quantum physics has been applied to chemistry in many ways and it turns out that works

>>10197016
If you're this serious can you upload a pdf of your research or something, instead of just shitposting

>>10197082
Chemistry worked when we were using alchemical ideas to explain it, it means nothing

This just sounds like the pop sci stuff ive heard veritasium talk about
https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ
And pbs space time talked about Bohmian mechanics and pilot wave theory, which are at least related to taking the Q out of QM

The double slit expirement is just the result of 2 waves interacting its not inherently quantum mechanical, the only reason QM is strange is that stuff we thought was particles were actuslly waves

>>10197109
Literally the only reason we know where electrons are in an atom are because of quantum physics

>>10197082
Haha you kiddin rite

>>10197039

How can I do that? It's 15,000 long and the thing here only allows 2000

>>10197016
This isn't anything novel, interference patters show up in wave mechanics all the time, take the interaction of two water waves in a pond, they'll create an interference pattern.

>>10197168
Are you pretending to be retarded? Upload it to pastebin

>>10197168
pastebin?

>>10197164
>implying we do

prove it

>>10197168
Pastebin? Github? There's tons of options to share code besides "copy it onto an imageboard directly".

>>10197039

Sorry the formatting got fucked. I'll try something else.

justpaste(dot)it(slash)41rc3

>>10197016
Increase the separation between the slits to a large value and see what happens. Also why are those "slits" so long?

>>10197181
Christ, use pastebin ffs

>>10197174

Does this work? Fuck the spam filters

Look here bra it's at paste bin DS5ntjgr

>>10197173
>proving anything irl
nice b8

>>10197191

>>10197197

I couldn't use the actual URL. Sorry. The spam filters is strong.

Link in pic related.

It's just a VBA macro. Paste into Excel and run.

>>10197161
>The double slit expirement is just the result of 2 waves interacting i

The point is you get an interference pattern with classical particles too.

L3 is actually 3 BTW. that parameter in the op is wrong

>>10197224
>The point is you get an interference pattern with classical particles too.
But that's a universal phenomenon of wave mechanics, there's more to quantum mechanics than just that. When Feynman is talking about the double slit experiment he's talking about more than just the interference pattern, he's talking about the full package and how slit changes in the measurement apparatus require that both photons and electrons must have both wave like and particle like properties, a manifestly non-classical phenomenon.

>>10197237
>he's talking about the full package and how slit changes in the measurement apparatus require that both photons and electrons must have both wave like and particle like properties, a manifestly non-classical phenomenon.

But it can all be explained classically with simple elastic particles. There is no need to claim the electron is a wave.

>>10197224
You call it an interferemce pattern, but you didn't post your 1 slit results.

An interference pattern would mean you can't derive the 2 slit pattern by just adding up the counts from the two different 1 slit patterns.

>>10197019
>All collisions are elastic.
Collisions between what exactly?

>>10197386
>Collisions between what exactly?

The wall

>>10197354
>You call it an interferemce pattern, but you didn't post your 1 slit results.

I'll write the program then if it's so important to you.

>>10197441
It's important, period.

>>10197016
>4chan post
>I've disproved Quantum physics.
Stopped reading right there.

What the fuck is going on

>>10197181
>Visual Basic
Moron.

>>10197016
>It turns out there is an interference pattern in the classical case.
Well no shit dude. You learn this in middle school with a wave generator, a dish of water, and an overhead projector.

>>10197348
>But it can all be explained classically with simple elastic particles. There is no need to claim the electron is a wave.
Wait, are you trying to say you reproduced an interference pattern by assuming the electrons had particle behavior? Then what you're describing is likely pilot wave theory, which has a whole host of conceptual and technical issues. Also how does your system reproduce the classical pattern when using detectors, which is to say, how do you introduce the born rule? Look, if you want a real non-trivial example to use, try reproducing the delayed choice quantum eraser or quantum harmonic oscillator.

>>10197109
>be organic chemist
>do some DFT calculation you dont understand but the quantum physicists do
>hmm the electron density in the transition state is mostly here and here so if i use this other catalyst that lines up with that my yields will be better
>your yields become better

>>10197452
>>Visual Basic
>Moron

It's free, it can control all Microsoft application and others.

Why hate ? Are you telling me you dont know it? I could have done it in any language, but I'm sitting at work and Excel is right in from of me.

>>10197479
>Well no shit dude. You learn this in middle school with a wave generator, a dish of water, and an overhead projector.

Maybe you don't understand. I got an interference pattern with particles elastically reflecting through a double slit.

>>10197483
>Then what you're describing is likely pilot wave theory, whic

Why do you guys keep talking about how this is obvious from waves? I'm not using any waves. I have an elastic particle only. That fact is that it looks like waves although no waves were simulated.

>>10197515
>elastically reflecting
Explain what you mean by this

>>10197531
>Explain what you mean by this

I guess I mean just like a hard ball bouncing. I basically just simulated a hard ball bouncing through a double slit and got an interference pattern.

To demonstrate the relevance of this discovery I've attached a picture of what was thought to happen with hard particles bouncing elastically through a double slit. As you can see my result are completely different. I actually simulated it and got the interference pattern.

This is revolutionary. It changes everything people thought and destroys the mystery of Quantum physics.

People thought pic related was what happened in the classical case. So they invented Quantum to explain the interference pattern. It turns out the interference pattern is classical.

>>10197016
tl;dr you're retarded

>>10197572
If you fire particles one at a time through a double slit you get an interference pattern.

This is quantum. What the fuck are you talking about.

>>10197523
It's called pilot wave theory, but it treats the particles as classical objects, that's why people are saying you're probably doing pilot wave theory.

>>10197594
>If you fire particles one at a time through a double slit you get an interference pattern

I know, but the reason is different. The way quantim mechanics explains the interference pattern is they say the particle splits in two, goes through both, diffracts on the opposite side and then the wave function collapses once it hits the detect.

I've got the same interference pattern just assuming the particle is classical, has a definite radius, and has elastic collisions with the walls.

>>10197207
lmao someone hit me with a "cs degree" meme edit

>>10197611
>It's called pilot wave theory

But I don't have any hidden variables. I only have the position and velocity of the particle. I didn't use a matter wave. I didn't use any formalism of a polilot wave. My assumptions are just a particle goes through a grate and if it hits a wall it bounces off .

>>10197016
If you put the source really far away from the slits, the angle wouldn't be steep enough for multiple bounces unless the particle hits the corner.

Try doing a simulation where the particles travel completely horizontally which simulates a source infinitely far away.

It would be interesting to see how hitting the front corner affects the distribution.
You could just ignore the ones that go straight through.

>>10197016
retard, the point of the double slit experiment is that if you measure the individual photons to see which slit it passed through, the interference pattern will dissapear

>>10197168
>>10197181
>>10197200
>>10197207

question: if quantum mechanics is "false", how come we have working quantum computer.

>>10197657
>retard, the point of the double slit experiment is that if you measure the individual photons to see which slit it passed through, the interference pattern will dissapear

But it's not. Refer to pic related. The mystery is that people thought you'd have to have a wave to understand why you get a interference pattern. My results show you get an interference pattern with classical particles.

>>10197664
>question: if quantum mechanics is "false", how come we have working quantum computer.

I actually just checked. My computer is 100% classical. Is yours quantum?

I'm not saying the results are wrong. I'm just saying you can explain this Quantum phenomenon classically.

>>10197016
Yes, double slit can happen with classical pilot wave.

But you will not beat quantum Bell test with pilot wave.

>>10197019

Wow so you're saying that the particles that bounce on the walls of those (incredibly long, almost tunnel like) slits and come out with a statistical distribution is the same as a wave diffracting?
You're a fucking idiot.

>>10197675
>Yes, double slit can happen with classical pilot wave

Fuck. For the millionth time. This not a pilot wave. Schrodinger's equation is not involved. It's just hard balls bouncing off walls.

Include me if this goes big. I was here.

>>10197669
But the particle on the right is never going to pass through the slits. Classically I mean.

>>10197678

Are you claiming in the double slit experiment with elections that the electron never interacted with anything except a 2D surface? Doesn't seem right.

>>10197686
>But the particle on the right is never going to pass through the slits. Classically I mean

I've proven it does. And the source claims it will too, although they have the distribution wrong.

>>10197625
>splits in two
No they do not. The interference pattern has been seen firing single bucky balls through the apparatus.

>>10197683
Yeah nigger. Which is also why it won't beat quantum Bell test.

>>10197699
So I kind of don't believe an electron cannon actually shoots something 'ball' like or something that could be considered a 'one' part of anything aka a particle. So I guess I just said the same thing trice.

>>10197699
>No they do not. The interference pattern has been seen firing single bucky balls through the apparatus.

Yes. They did shoot buckeye balls through the double slit and it did make an interference pattern. I got the same result modeling the buckeye ball as a classical hard particle.

>>10197698
>I've proven it does.
The particle is aiming at the wall, not at the slits. Can you elaborate here in a few words how is that supposed to happen?

>>10197712
>The particle is aiming at the wall, not at the slits

All the material I've reviewed shows the particle beam aimed between the two slits. Why would I deviate from that?

Particles don't exist.

>>10197717
>All the material I've reviewed shows the particle beam aimed between the two slits.
Yes.
But classically the particles are going to hit the wall and bounce back since they are not aimed at the slits.
Specifically if you close one slit, the pattern will still form but again classically not particle is going to go through since the beam and the slit are not aligned.

>>10197708
not buckyballS. Buckyball. Single. Self-interference of particles has been demonstrated and its impossible in your model

>>10197751
>not buckyballS. Buckyball. Single. Self-interference of particles has been demonstrated and its impossible in your model

My model and classical system is just one at a time too. I get an interference pattern. It's not impossible.

So I haven't seen the results with one slit covered yet.

>>10197765
>So I haven't seen the results with one slit covered yet

Fuck you nigger. write the program yourself or wait patiently.

>>10197761
by one at a time I mean 1-per-measure. You cant get an interference pattern in your model if you only shoot one electron, obviously, since it cant classically go through both slits at the same time. Single electron interference can be measured.

>>10197776
>You cant get an interference pattern in your model if you only shoot one electron,

I did. Review the code. It's not an n-body simulation. It's just one particle at a time.

>>10197739
Answer this.

>>10197780
hold on are you simulating the particle bouncing back from the detector wall?

>>10197780
Again, you call it an interference pattern, but you haven't demonstrated that it's not a sum of two independent distributions, one per slit.

>>10197788
>hold on are you simulating the particle bouncing back from the detector wall

No. That would be retarded. It hits the back wall at L3 and stops.

>>10197793
then a single point MUST be observed at the detector wall, which contradicts experiments that show that a SINGLE ELECTRON will form an interference pattern through self-interference

>>10197787

I don't get your question . I aimed the electron beam at the center of the two slits like in all the material I reviewed. Are you saying that's wrong?

I spread out the trajectories of the electrons too. Is that relevant?

>>10197708
A buckyball is a classical hard particle

>>10197672
modern transistors are explained with QED

>>10197796
A single electron shows up as a dot. You only see the pattern after lots of repetitions.

>>10197813
so QM is correct, and your model doesnt match experiment

>>10197819
I'm not OP. I'm telling you, in QM, if you only run the experiment once, you see a single dot.

>>10197822
wrong. self-interference occurs even with a single electron

>>10197797
See the image.

>>10197830
Where did you get an emitter like that?

>>10197829
I never said self-interference doesn't occur. I said you only see one dot when a single electron hits the screen. Look at any paper that does the experiment, like https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16104

>>10197830

Like I said previously I've given them a distribution of different trajectories

>>10197019
>>10197016
QUANTUM PHYSICS
BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

>>10197635
sometimes pasta like that is the quickest to write.

>>10197016
Have you considered the interference pattern might be down to rounding error?
https://www.floating-point-gui.de/errors/rounding/

OP, people who seem to have brilliant insights on Physics but no real education are 99.9% people in the early stages of Schizophrenia

go to a psychiatrist and get tested, trust me

>>10197838
>Where did you get an emitter like that?
Mine is just geometry on paper with a few assumptions.
How is OP allowed to assume this?
>>10197847
>I've given them a distribution of different trajectories

>>10197868
>Have you considered the interference pattern might be down to rounding error?

That's very doubtful. The particles only bounce a few times down the slit. I don't see error propogating so devestatingly with only a few dozen calculations. The variable are all double precision too.

>>10197889


In all the treatments of the system I've seen the incident electrons are given a distribution of trajectories from the source.

>>10197889
>How is OP allowed to assume this?
OP is pretty obviously not assuming an infinitely small emitter that perfectly shoots electrons in one direction. Does the wave version even make sense with that?

>>10197890
>double precision
>few dozen calculations
>don't see error propagation so devestatingly
Error propagation isn't primarily about rounding errors

>>10197838
>>10197889
a CRT (cathode ray gun or tube) the electron bounce is also something that happens in real devices.

>>10197890

There are also issues with randomisation with VB.
Calculate a random set of numbers and examine first, then, if you're happy it's random enough, set it through and see if you still get the same result.

>>10197913
CRTs don't have literally the width of an electron as the beam diameter AFAIK.

>>10197916
I would say he should just rewrite it in something with a better PRNG and an arbitrary precision library.

>>10197921
Are you implying that the return you'd get would be worth spending the extra time to learn it all, compared to a small edit?

You should also use more realistic dimensions, like those given in the supplement here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018

Around 62nm slit width, 272nm separation. Thickness isn't given in the table but the text says it is made from 100nm thin material; no idea if that's still the thickness after cutting the slits. And the screen distance is a whopping 240mm away from the slits. The de Broglie wavelength was 50pm but you don't seem to believe in that.

If you can reproduce Fig. S2, I'll start taking your idea seriously.

>>10197923
If the RNG is biased, him looking at the numbers to say "it's good" isn't going to matter, it's not convincing anyone. Waiving away floating point errors as not happening also won't convince people they aren't involved (even though IMO it's pretty unlikely).

>>10197916
>There are also issues with randomisation with VB

Nothing is randomized.

Absolute brainlet here, what are quantum mechanics even needed for to explain reality

>>10197938
Everything

>>10197936
Yep, looked at your code. RNG isn't a factor.

A lot of people seem to think there's something wrong with OP's simulation that's causing these interference patterns. I don't believe there's any mistakes in OP's simulation, other than it not reflecting reality.

The slits look to be extremely long compared to their widths. So most particles traveling through will be reflected, potentially many times. Depending on the exact angle coming in, particles can reflect n times, n+1 times, n+2 times, n+3 times, etc., up to in principle an arbitrarily large number of reflections. But OP's initial post shows 5 bands, and the outer 2 are extremely small, so I don't think the range covers more than 3 or 4 per slit typically.

The key feature is that at certain thresholds of entry angle, the particle will go from n reflections to n+1 reflections, and then its exit direction changes, meaning it switches to a different band on the other side of the slit. Then, for another particle, if the angle crosses another threshold, it may change from n+1 to n+2 reflections, and then it switches sides of the slit again. But the n+2 reflections band typically wouldn't be the same as the n reflections band because, since the entry angle was different, the exit angle will also be different.

So I think the features OP sees are just discrete numbers of reflections inside the really long and narrow slits. And that's why I've asked to see the pattern when one of the slits is covered. I expect the same band spacing to be present, just with some of the bands shrunk or eliminated. And I expect the two band pattern to just be the sum of the one band batterns.

>>10198012
>So most particles traveling through will be reflected, potentially many times.

why does that matter? after the second reflection it has the exact same trajectory. in fact the bouncing only changes the sign of the y velocity vector.

since its symmetrical about the y axis it doesn't even matter. the number of times it bounces inside does not add to the complexity of the problem or the results.

>>10198029
>why does that matter? after the second reflection it has the exact same trajectory. in fact the bouncing only changes the sign of the y velocity vector

If only my post had more sentences

>Depending on the exact angle coming in, particles can reflect n times, n+1 times, n+2 times, n+3 times, etc., up to in principle an arbitrarily large number of reflections.
>The key feature is that at certain thresholds of entry angle, the particle will go from n reflections to n+1 reflections, and then its exit direction changes, meaning it switches to a different band on the other side of the slit. Then, for another particle, if the angle crosses another threshold, it may change from n+1 to n+2 reflections, and then it switches sides of the slit again. But the n+2 reflections band typically wouldn't be the same as the n reflections band because, since the entry angle was different, the exit angle will also be different.

>>10198031
>>Depending on the exact angle coming in, particles can reflect n times, n+1 times, n+2 times, n+3 times, etc., up to in principle an arbitrarily large number of reflections.

so what

incident <1,1>
reflected <1,-1>
reflecte d again <1,1>
reflected again <1,-1>
reflected again <1,1>

in the end <1,1> and <1,-1> ends up at the same place on the detector about the origin. it doesnt matter

>>10198037
>at certain thresholds of entry angle, the particle will go from n reflections to n+1 reflections, and then its exit direction changes, meaning it switches to a different band on the other side of the slit. Then, for another particle, if the angle crosses another threshold, it may change from n+1 to n+2 reflections, and then it switches sides of the slit again. But the n+2 reflections band typically wouldn't be the same as the n reflections band because, since the entry angle was different, the exit angle will also be different.
Computer, enhance
>But the n+2 reflections band typically wouldn't be the same as the n reflections band because, since the entry angle was different, the exit angle will also be different.
Computer, enhance!
>since the entry angle was different, the exit angle will also be different.

The number of reflections depends on the entry trajectory. If I take your diagram at face value, you have a bunch of trajectories. Meaning they are going in different directions and will undergo different numbers of reflections, and thus exit in very different directions.

plot twist: this is a chromatogram pasted onto a matlab graph and you have all been had

>>10198042
>The number of reflections depends on the entry trajectory.

if it bounces one time or a million times it doesn't matter, ive shown that. you are right if you go down to a 2D case the results change. as long as the width of the slit is equal to or longer than its opening nothing changes.

this still doesnt matter. taking the limit as L2=L3 and saying the results change doesn't change the fact that at some finite length it is an interference pattern.

>>10197016
cool thread

can you apply this to boson sampling?

>>10198053
>limit as L2=L3 and saying the re

im sorry L1=L2

>>10197917
well apparently you can do single electron, this reference is not exactly using a CRT i'm just presenting it because is one reference i got at hand (i think i saw another video usind a CRT but can't find it), go to 15:45 for the inmidiate citation. the video is super interesting because you can see how he got to a single photon, its almost incredible how he did it just so simple using filters , the set up looks so "sketchy" for it to be considered a proof he himself says at the end "we are confident of our interpretation"... but hey, the fuck do i know!

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

>>10197016
big if true

>>10198053
>if it bounces one time or a million times it doesn't matter, ive shown that.
No, you haven't. Because you've talked about number of reflections for a single starting trajectory instead of addressing the point that I actually brought up, which is that the number of reflections varies with entry angle. You admit yourself that you have a range of initial trajectories.

Look, I'll help you out. I found a website that traces rays and can show you exactly what I'm talking about.

Download this:
https://pastebin.com/PNLXBg2U
Go here:
https://ricktu288.github.io/ray-optics/simulator/
And open that file, you can see. I've even attached an image of what it looks like.

>>10198088
>Hangin on some shitty setup for tv by a shitty presenter
yeah, no. read, niga.

>>10198092
>No, you haven't. Because you've talked about number of reflections for a single starting trajectory

Ok then. Take any initial vector <Vx,Vy>
after reflection its <Vx,-Vy>
2nd rflection <Vx,Vy>
3rd reflection <Vx,-Vy>
4th reflection <Vx,Vy>
5th reflection <Vx,-Vy>

you don't believe me? of course Vx never changes and if the magnitude of Vy changed it wouldn't conserve energy or momentum.

the number of reflections doesn't change the results.

>>10198106
And you're still talking about a single starting trajectory. Instead of, you know, looking at the image I posted that shows rays coming out at different angles with a band structure.

Let me hold your hand. Take a starting trajectory <Vx1,Vy1>, and a different trajectory <Vx2,Vy2>. Assume the first one reflects 3 times and the second one reflects 4 times. Let's go up a step and give a third trajectory <Vx3,Vy3>, and have it reflect 5 times. Let's say all these trajectories are normalized, and Vy1<Vy2<Vy3

>>10198115
>nstead of, you know, looking at the image I posted that shows rays coming out at different angles with a band structure.

ok. I've looked at it and it confirms my findings. nice pic

>>10198119
So you admit the number of reflections matters. Do you also admit that your "double slit interference" distribution is just a sum of the two single slit distributions, which is not what is experimentally observed?

>>10198115

nothing changes when you change the initial vector. the y-component just changes sign on every reflection. so what? when it comes out it still lands on the same point about the point of symmetry.

>>10197016
The way you've set it up biases the amount of allowable reflections to the middle. If you make the barrier thin then the "interference" will disappear.

>>10198126
>So you admit the number of reflections matters

no I do not. nowhere in the picture does it show the output changes if the length is shorter.

the number of reflections is irrelevant you havent proven anything

>>10198135
What do you think is different between the different bands in my image, then, if not the number of times it has reflected?

>>10198130

and?

where in the double slit experiment does it say the grate must have 0 length?

for a finite grate length there is an interference pattern.

>>10198137
>What do you think is different between the different bands in my image, then, if not the number of times it has reflected?

I think you are profoundly mistaken. you can write a proof if you are so convinced of yourself.

>>10198139
The point is that you get an actual interference pattern if you remove biases to where the particle can enter. What you're showing is not an interference pattern.

>>10198139
If you're that confident, use the realistic numbers given here:
>>10197925
And make sure, on top of the other numbers I already got from the paper for you, that you place the source 30.5cm from the double slits.

>>10198143
I mean, the raytracing kind of speaks for itself.

>>10198139
Dude you claimed that this model disproved quantum physics. If your model only replicates the interference pattern under certain circumstances and not others then it doesn't disprove anything. The reason your model looks like an interference pattern under certain conditions has been explained. Make the parameters of your model more like the real world experiment if you don't understand this. You'll fail to replicate the real interference pattern.

>>10198147
>What you're showing is not an interference pattern.

looks pretty convincing to me.

The classical double slit problem involves shooting balls through two slits that are just wider than the balls' diameter. This problem absolutely does not have wave interference.

>>10198157
Then show it reproduces the pattern under realistic parameters rather than the single set you've shown/

>>10198154
>If your model only replicates the interference pattern under certain circumstances and not others

do you have evidence of ths?

I agree if you take limits such that dimensions collapse or become infinite then the pattern disappears, but I dont know understand why you think it only works for one specific combination numbers. the code is all there. change all the parameters and post the results yourself

>>10198160
>under realistic parameters

how are the current parameters unrealistic? one could construct such a system in the real world and get these results.

like I said the code it there. do it your damn self.

>>10198162
>do you have evidence of ths?
The ray tracing shows this. You can easily change the parameters of your model, so do it.

>I agree if you take limits such that dimensions collapse or become infinite then the pattern disappears
No, just realistic parameters.

>>10198171
>how are the current parameters unrealistic? one could construct such a system in the real world and get these results.
They don't reproduce the parameters of the experiments in which interference patterns were found.

>like I said the code it there. do it your damn self.
LOL, you already know it fails so you're refusing to show the results.

>>10198171
>how are the current parameters unrealistic?
Well, you see, we like to compare models with experiments. And experiments involving electrons are hard to run with arbitrary parameters. Thankfully, I've already provided parameters that have been used for an experiment in this thread.
>>10198150
>>10197925

>>10198175
>They don't reproduce the parameters of the experiments in which interference patterns were found.
>>like I said the code it there. do it your damn self.
>LOL, you already know it fails so you're refusing to show the results.

god you are retarded. I've been entertaining you but seriously, the idea that the number of reflections makes the angles change is retarded and you are retarded. reflection makes the y component change sign nothing else.

>>10197016
Does your code exhibit the same results as the time delayed quantum eraser? Because if so, Bohemian mechanics here I come.

>>10198184
If there's an odd number of reflections, a trajectory that enters the slit moving upward will leave with a downward trajectory. If there's an even number of reflections, a trajectory that enters the slit moving upward will leave with an upward trajectory.

QED

Do you want more? The number of reflections is a function of the entry angle and entry position, and it changes discontinuously with angle since the number of reflections is an integer.

>>10198194
>If there's an odd number of reflections, a trajectory that enters the slit moving upward will leave with a downward trajectory. If there's an even number of reflections, a trajectory that enters the slit moving upward will leave with an upward trajectory.

I know. this is what I already explained.

>>10198199
So you admit that a different number of reflections leads to a different outgoing trajectory.

>>10198184
Look at >>10198130

The slit only allows most to bounce once, meaning they go to the middle. The ones that bounce twice go away from the middle and are spread apart more.

>>10198202
>So you admit that a different number of reflections leads to a different outgoing trajectory.

no. because every even numbered reflection puts it back on the same trajectory.

>>10197016
Is this a simulation or an actual real-world experiment?

>>10198205
>The slit only allows most to bounce once, meaning they go to the middle. The ones that bounce twice go away from the middle and are spread apart more.

so?

why are you people so obsessed with the number of bounces? did young have to deal with tards like you?

>>10198207
Some trajectories leave after an even number of reflections, some leave after an odd number of reflection. Even among the ones that leave with an even number of reflections, they have different trajectories because, as you state yourself, you have a bunch of initial trajectories.

>>10198211
>Is this a simulation or an actual real-world experiment?

simulation

>>10198213
>look, I reproduced interference patterns!
>what do you mean it's not interference and it's just a result of reflections

>>10197664
Quantum computers are /literally/ just classical computers designed to have more than 2 states per bit. They do not occupy all states simultaneously. They must still be classically set to and recorded as a singular state, but the fluctuations of electrons in an atom are used to define more individual states than just 0 and 1. This type of computer and mechanism is not alien and has existed in some forms for a very long time, and is completely emulatable through classical computer software.

Quantum Computers are actually one of the bigger indicators that quantum is actually bullshit, cause they're selling snake oil and not even the brightest scientists have figured otherwise.

>>10198215
>Some trajectories leave after an even number of reflections, some leave after an odd number of reflection. Even among the ones that leave with an even number of reflections, they have different trajectories because, as you state yourself, you have a bunch of initial trajectories.

so? and?

did the real double slit experiment include a grate with a length of zero??

>>10198213
No bounces, no interference pattern.

>>10198220
>>look, I reproduced interference patterns!
>>what do you mean it's not interference and it's just a result of reflections

it an interference pattern even if you dont like how the pattern emerged.

>>10198221
Quantum computers are not the same thing as analog computers, if that's what you're implying.

>>10198232
>implying
It's what the post explicitly stated.
Yes. They are classical analog computers whose bits have more than 2 states. Thats it.

>>10198226
>No bounces, no interference pattern.

I agree. if the grate isn't actually there you don't get any results. are you saying the original double slit experiment had a length of zero?

>>10198223
It had a source that was extremely far away compared to the length of the slits. That makes reflection really rare.

>>10198238
No, the grate length was too small to allow a significant number of particles to bounce. Thus your model fails to replicate the experiment.

>>10198226

you arent taking the finite radius of the ball into account either.

>>10198244
Doesn't matter.

>>10198237
Yeah, spoken like someone who doesn't understand quantum computers.

>>10198246
k enjoy being retarded.

>>10198240

read >>10198244


you are collapsing dimensions to zero. I agree if you shrink the ball to zero or the grate length to zero you get nothing.

still with a finite length and ball radius you get an interference pattern.

>>10198245
>Doesn't matter.

yes it does.

>>10198251
>he doesn't know about the quantum threshold theorem

>>10198252
>>10198256
Then show realistic parameters. Oh you won't, because you know you fail to replicate the pattern.

>>10198264
>he doesn't know how classical computers work

>>10198266
>Then show realistic parameters. Oh you won't, because you know you fail to replicate the pattern.

god you are retarded. the code is posted.

>>10198268
>he doesn't know there's no threshold theorem for classical analog computers

>>10198273
Sure, just let me install a VBA setup to disprove your crackpot idea.

>>10198273
Based schizo disproving QM with a VBA script.

>>10198276
>Sure, just let me install a VBA setup to disprove your crackpot idea.

you don't have any of the microsoft office products? you can easily rewrite it into VB and there is a compiler on every copy of windows.

>>10198278
>Based schizo disproving QM with a VBA script.

I simulated a double-slit classically and got an interference pattern which every thing I've read tells me is impossible.

>>10198287
Ok now do the experiment for real and not in a shitty simulation.

>>10198284
No, I do not. But let's move back to a point you never addressed:
>>10198239
Since the distance of the source to the slits is about 6 orders of magnitude greater than the thickness of the slits in a real experiment, only about one in a million electrons that get through the slit will have reflected at all. So how can you reproduce the experiments that were actually run?

>>10198295
>computers are not real

>>10198302
Computer simulations that don't reflect actual experiments that have been run are worthless.

>>10198305
>Computer simulations that don't reflect actual experiments that have been run are worthless.

the reality is no one ever did a simulation of the classical case. they just assumed it would be a silhouette of the slits or gaussians centered on the slits. no one ever did any real experiments or simulation before I decided to.

>>10198321
You keep saying nobody did it. You don't have any proof of that. I just myself calculated that around 999999/1000000 of the electrons that get through the slit will go in straight line paths through the slits without reflecting inside. Are you really going to say that nobody before you ever thought about this and checked? Did you ever think maybe that the geometry of your setup doesn't reflect the experiments people thought about?

>>10198329
/thread

>>10198329

are you the retard that shrank the ball to zero radius and the slit length to zero? if so you are a fucking moron. It's ironic you keep claiming I didn't use realistic parameters.

The delayed choice quantum eraser makes me feel afraid

>>10198338
The electron radius, if there is such a thing, is constrained to be less than around 10^-9 nm. It is far smaller than any other scale in the problem, and can be neglected.

The slit thickness is around 100nm, and the distance from the source to the slits is around 30cm. That's a ratio of about 10^-7. The ratio of distance to slit thickness determines whether you can neglect the thickness of the slits. So yeah, you can ignore that, too.

If you actually understand the problem and how radius and slit thickness show up, you'd realize that yes, in realistic setups, you can ignore them.

>>10198353

ok. I actually simulated a buckyball then not an electron.

>>10198372
Okay, buckyballs are about 50 times smaller than any scale in the electron problem. Still negligible, but maybe with really large statistics you might see mild effects. That's assuming it even uses the same slit sizes as the electron experiments.

But long story short: no, you didn't simulate buckyballs.

>>10198372
Actually the buckyball experiment carefully screened the trajectory of the balls before going through the interferometer gratings. There was no bouncing.

>>10198237
Are you a fucking chimp dude?

>>10198400
>Actually the buckyball experiment carefully screened the trajectory of the balls before going through the interferometer gratings. There was no bouncing.

in the simulations I saw the particles are always pointed at the center of the two slits. I don't see how it couldn't physically interact with the walls.

>>10198404
When you have a point source really far away from the slits, the walls "inside" the slits have an extraordinarily tiny cross section. Like I said for the electron experiment, when the distance to the source is about 6 orders of magnitude bigger than the thickness of the slits, reflecting off the wall is about a one in a million event. I don't know the details of the buckyball experiment, but this one in a million is without even doing anything special.

>>10198404
The buckyballs experiment is very different though. The particles aren't ball shaped, they're more like discs with pieces sticking out. These molecules had to be heated into a gas and their trajectories screened because of the effect of gravity and because they needed a specific polarization.

>>10197572
You forget one thing OP, and that is when single electrons are let through one at a time, and time is allowed to pass to get enough for a signal to show, there is still the interference pattern- even when the electrons must not have interacted with each other after being emitted. If your model lets through electrons one at a time, without elastically coliding with other electrons, what does it show?

>>10198428
If his code gets the output he claims it does, it gets that output from one at a time.

What the FUCK do you think an interference pattern IS? Your simulation represents a finite probability distribution containing elastic bounces--constant interference occurs with your ball outside of the result of a fundamental property of physics itself. When you are in a probability distribution that entails 1.interference 2.repetition your result is going to be distributed like an interference pattern. What you're doing here by having a high frequency of interference is basically simulating a wave as individual segments being separately interfered upon equally over the course of distribution. This is a fucking relationship between causality and repetition, not disproving QM.

>>10198428
>You forget one thing OP, and that is when single electrons are let through one at a time, and time is allowed to pass to get enough for a signal to show, there is still the interference pattern- even when the electrons must not have interacted with each other after being emitted. If your model lets through electrons one at a time, without elastically coliding with other electrons, what does it show?

it is one at a time.

>>10198440
>This is a fucking relationship between causality and repetition, not disproving QM.

I was told an interference pattern from particles passing through a double slit one at a time was impossible .

>>10198440
so he's not simulating classical physics?

>>10197678
If it's a statistical distribution shouldn't it have been more uniform (no gaps)?

Make the inside of the slit non-reflective.

>>10197016
You're really fucking dumb or a troll.

>muhh simulation
Fuck you. you actually need to do the experiment you fucking faggot. your simulation is worth less than dogshit

>>10198498
He said that your particles are acting like waves because of their properties and how they are interacting with each other. This makes your simulation create a interference pattern. This is literally the original classical experiment because it didn’t actually show us if you can make the particles go back into columns by observing where they go in the slits- which was the whole thing that got physicists confused.

>>10198602
>and how they are interacting with each other
If you read his code, they can't interact with each other. It's probably something like >>10198012 said and it's an artifact of the integer nature of the number of bounces.

>>10197016
WOW

>>10198588
in this context no

why the fuck is /sci/ so cringy

i think everyone who is successful in STEM ends up actually working or something, idk, i'm not there yet

>>10197016
How do you do a simulation of a naturally occurring phenomenon which cannot be explained by humans = can't be simulated accurately?

Jesus fuck /sci/ is retarded. Not only OP but also most of the people posting irrelevant garbage.


Here's your interpretation: >>10198130
Central peak is due to most particles bouncing once, side peaks are due to fewer particles bouncing twice etc. as Anon said.

The length of the tube your particles bounce through is not irrelevant. Yes, bouncing twice will reset your velocity vector for a particle. BUT it will not make the trajectory equal, there will be an offset due to, for example, the fourth bounce occurring at a different location from the second bounce. So there will be sets of trajectories which are offset from other sets depending on how many bounces each had. This is what we see as "bands" in your image. Peaks get smaller outside of the center because more bounces requires more extreme angles.

It might be instructive to think about what we expect to see when the slit thickness is changed. Presumably thicker slits would give you more peaks with more equal heights.

In any case, this is perfectly reasonable and despite any external resemblance to an interference pattern it is not caused by interference. To prove that it isn't, as a previous Anon said, you can try running the program with either slit covered, superpose the results and, I am confident, get the same result as with both slits open. This is not true for the quantum double slit experiment, and thus your experiment does not reproduce those results.

It has been pointed out that the dimensions of you experiment are not similar to those used in "real" experiments. You argue that this doesn't matter because such a system could be constructed. However, changing the dimensions of the problem changes the effects we see. As a result, you're looking at a different effect than the double slit experiment, who presumably chose their dimensions so as to avoid this kind of issue interfering with the actual effect.

It's kind of neat that it looks superficially similar, though.

>>10197691

That's exactly what I'm saying. In the original double slit experiment the electron only needs to diffract by crossing a hole (with virtually 0 thickness) with a size comparable to its wavelength and then interact with the "ripples" from the other slit.

>>10198542

Not all distributions are uniform my dude. Also I think they would, in accordance with the Geometry of the experiment, have a tendency to a particular point on the wall.

>>10198711
>(with virtually 0 thickness) with a size comparable to its wavelength and then interact with the "ripples" from the other slit.

Listen to yourself. This is magical thinking bullshit. The classical case gives the same results. It has been proven.

>>10197447
\thread

>>10197016
OK, now prove it empirically.

>>10197019
I recall an experiment in which individual photons were sent through a double slit one at a time and they still produced an interference pattern, how does you model explain that?

>>10198353
>around 10^-9 nm. It is far smaller than any other scale in the problem, and can be neglected.
>The slit thickness is around 100nm

So the electron will have a large number of bounces inside the slit, further speaking for OPs assumption that the interference distribution is attributed to internal reflections / collisions.

Based op blowing out quantum fags.

>>10198855
No. That would only be the case if the slits were very close to the point source, and it also carries the assumption that electrons are actually reflected when they hit the slit; they could also be absorbed.

Further, as has been stressed numerous times, if reflections inside the slit were the cause of the quantum double slit pattern, the pattern of two slits would be a superposition of the one-slit patterns. This is not the experimental result of quantum double slit experiments, and is indeed one of the main reasons for why the double slit experiment is interesting. The pattern OP gets is not an interference pattern for this reason, despite appearances.

>>10198899
>That would only be the case if the slits were very close to the point source,

How is that relevant? Each particle enters inside the slit with one definite vector of velocity under one definite angle regardless of how far it has traveled.

>and it also carries the assumption that electrons are actually reflected when they hit the slit; they could also be absorbed.

That falls under ops assumption of elastic reflection. The electrons might also be absorbed and reemitted if you wish, altering their velocity vector and position. Think of billiard table.

>Further, as has been stressed numerous times, if reflections inside the slit were the cause of the quantum double slit pattern, the pattern of two slits would be a superposition of the one-slit patterns.

Did Op argue against this?

>This is not the experimental result of quantum double slit experiments, and is indeed one of the main reasons for why the double slit experiment is interesting. The pattern OP gets is not an interference pattern for this reason, despite appearances

Seems similar to me. Ofc if you start with the assumption of sinusoidal waves, but that's a simulation on paper.

>>10198928
>How is that relevant?
Because the further away your point source is, the smaller the incidence angle is for particles that actually make it into the slit. Smaller incidence angle means they bounce less times, and despite the electron "size" being much less than the slit depth, you can't say that they definitely bounce many times for all configurations.

>That falls under ops assumption of elastic reflection.
I'm not talking about OP's simulation there, I'm talking about the actual experiments where elastic reflection may not be the case.

>Did Op argue against this?
OP has refused to show the data, and it's sort of the point of the whole thread. Without proving that the two-slit pattern is not a superposition of the one-slit patterns, you haven't reproduced the quantum double slit experiment's result. Then it's just a pattern that's pretty easily explainable by considering the reflections inside OP's slits and bears a superficial resemblance to interference patterns.

>Seems similar to me.
The pattern? Sure. But, again, what I was referring to as the result here is not the pattern as such but rather the two-slit pattern not being a superposition of the one-slit patterns. That's the "quantum" bit that requires your particle to be "aware" somehow of the presence of two slits, even if it can only pass through one.

>>10198928
>>10198947
Further, "seems similar to me" isn't very good here. It would be much more instructive for OP to run the simulation with the kind of numbers you'd use for quantum particle double-slit experiments and see whether the pattern actually matches the experimentally observed one in terms of peak spacings and intensities . Or just derive the quantum results from theory and shove the same numbers into the program, should take a few minutes.

A set of peaks with decaying amplitudes can be produced in many ways. Just because a set of decaying peaks "looks like" another set of decaying peaks doesn't mean that it's the same process producing both, especially when OP has not compared his results to those that we'd expect from theory for his configuration so we don't even really know what exactly it should look like.

>disproved QM
>200 replies
>ctrl f: spin, zero results
/a/ is lost.

>>10197016
The double slit for photons is explained classically though the mystery is why electrons diffract

>>10198947
>the further away your point source is, the smaller the incidence angle is for particles that actually make it into the slit. Smaller incidence angle means they bounce less times, and despite the electron "size" being much less than the slit depth, you can't say that they definitely bounce many times for all configurations.

But consider your own dimensions here :

>slit thickness around 1E2 nm
>electron radius 1E-8 nm

This is a factor of 1E10. Sizing it up to human scales would be having a billiard ball with 5 cm radius travel travel through a hundred thousand km long tunnel. You'd expect reflections / bounces in this case won't you? How wide are the slits?

>OP has refused to show the data, and it's sort of the point of the whole thread.

Diy. Maybe I'll write a short program and post source here later.

>>10198972
>Sizing it up to human scales would be having a billiard ball with 5 cm radius travel travel through a hundred thousand km long tunnel
>You'd expect reflections / bounces in this case won't you?

Not if the billiard balls originated from a spherical source and had been travelling for hundreds of millions of km in a straight line before hitting the tunnel. They'd be very nearly collinear by then.

>Diy. Maybe I'll write a short program and post source here later.
Burden of proof is on the guy who says "I've disproved QM", not on people saying his evidence is insufficient for sensible reasons.

>>10198954
>Further, "seems similar to me" isn't very good here

Agree, but OP is arguing for quality because he expected some strip or bell curve. Your are arguing for quantity (spacing, peaks, mathematical model), which comes afterwards and is dependant upon the simulation parameters imo.

>>10198975
>They'd be very nearly collinear by then.

Nearly collinear is not parallel, and if the path is not perpendicular to the walls it ought to bounce sooner or later.

>>10198980
>perpendicular to the walls

Meant parallel to walls of perpendicular to the doubleslit cover.

>>10198975
>Burden of proof is on the guy who says "I've disproved QM", not on people saying his evidence is insufficient for sensible reasons

His evidence might be fake alltogether but the experiment is worth replicating as it is possible to diy.

>>10198980
>sooner or later
Yes, indeed. The point is, if the distance between your point source and your slit is much greater than the depth (and width) of your slit, the particles that make it into the slit are travelling so close to parallel with the slit's inside that, over the relatively short distance inside the slit (short relative to the path they've travelled so far, not to the particle size), very few of them will actually ever be reflected.

This is a very basic thing and I'm not sure why you fail to see it.


>>10198976
Are you just OP posting in third person? Anyway, the quantifiable predictions are important (and of course do depend on simulation parameters) because they are another thing that would tell you whether what you see is another explanation for effects that QM theory explains (which it isn't) or just an unrelated thing that bears a superficial resemblance (which is what it is).

>>10198985
I don't think there's anything wrong with the program, though I certainly won't run through it and absolutely will not replicate it.

The results make sense to me and are what I'd expect from classical physics.

I don't think they have any relevance to the quantum double slit experiment and no compelling evidence to the contrary has been given.

>>10198602
Wrong, I said it's because of how they interact with the fucking slit. They obviously can't interact with others because it has only one sent at a time.

>>10198992
>short relative to the path they've travelled so far,

The path they traveled so far is irrelevant for the interaction inside the slit, what matters is only
>position
>velocity vector in magnitude and angle
>dimension of the slit and the radius

Nothing else determines if collisions occur or not.

Are you familiar with computational modeling or vector geometry? Have you had an introductionary course in physics?

>that bears a superficial resemblance (which is what it is).

No I'm not OP. And the whole qm approach to the doubleslit experiment makes unrealistic claims (arbitrary thin walls, just the right spacing between two slits, wave-like nature of photons).

Real crystals have real thickness, dimensions etc. which you can't ignore so that the math becomes easy.

>>10197016
Physicists already thought about the possibility that the "balls" were bouncing off each other to create an interference-like pattern.

>>10199017
>The path they traveled so far is irrelevant for the interaction inside the slit
It really isn't. Just consider the difference between the point source being at the entrance of the slit, where the particles that get in could do so at any angle between +-90 degrees to the slit axis, and the point source being much farther, where the angles that make it into the slit would range from, say 15 to -15 degrees.

It's pretty clear that in the latter case most of the particles that make it into the slit would bounce around less times, because only particles that come in at smaller angles to the slit axis make it inside the slit.

>velocity vector in magnitude and angle
Moving the source changes the angles which can make it into the slit.

>Are you familiar with computational modeling or vector geometry? Have you had an introductionary course in physics?
I've done more than enough physics, but this is some pretty basic reasoning that you're failing to do here and appealing to any credentials you may or may not have will only make you look foolish.

>>10197168
which is more likely:
-code you won't share has a bug in it
-quantum physics is wrong

>>10199022
>bouncing off each other

OP claims he performs a one-particle experiment in succession to the next, not an n-particle experiment once.

>>10199031
>It really isn't. Just consider the difference between the point source being at the entrance of the slit, where the particles that get in could do so at any angle between +-90 degrees to the slit axis, and the point source being much farther, where the angles that make it into the slit would range from, say 15 to -15 degrees.

We are arguing about two sides of the same coin. The distance of the source creates the starting positions and angles of the electron ball model as it passes through the slit, which further determine the trajectories. But to neglect the angles would mean you'll end up with 2 dots on the screen which happens in neither case.

>appealing to any credentials

I'm not. It just seems to me you do not understand how a simulation is set up and what the underlying computational ideas behind the object on the display are. What the computer does is a little different to what you do with your pencil and a piece of paper.

>>10198498
Someone explained it much more completely before me, but your pattern is the result of interference caused by the slit.

Where one ball ends and the path it took is one part of your probability distribution. Every single ball has an equal chance to end up anywhere within the probability distribution, but only in regads to the condtions of the system, such as when each part of the distribution has chances to bounce before reaching the terminating wall. In your simulation every ball bounces. None can pass through un-bounced. Bounces DO change where the balls go. That effects the distribution. Because of the length of your slits and distance of your emmitter, balls coming from your top slit are most likely to hit the center, second most likely to hit a range slightly lower, and third, even lower and less, skipping certain ranges because, the distance traveled and the lengths of the slit cause a concentration at certain ranges of angles given every ball always bounces. The same is true for the lower slit. Just close one slit and see what happens man.

>>10199082
>But to neglect the angles would mean you'll end up with 2 dots on the screen which happens in neither case
When have I ever said to neglect the angles? The whole thing relies on different incidence angle ranges bouncing a different number of times.


>It just seems to me you do not understand how a simulation is set up and what the underlying computational ideas behind the object on the display are
This is a very basic simulation, it's not very difficult to understand. It's kind of funny for you to be asking me about whether I've done introductory physics, though, because you don't seem to get why changing the dimensions of the problem changes the physics that is relevant, or what it is about the double slit experiment that requires quantum physics to explain.

In any case I've said about everything I want to say and more. Until OP or someone else provides some evidence about the double slit pattern not being a superposition of single slit patterns there isn't much more to discuss here.

>>10199103
>When have I ever said to neglect the angles?

>over the relatively short distance inside the slit (short relative to the path they've travelled so far, not to the particle size),

This sounds like the path of the electrons that is much larger as they reach the slit is somehow more relevant than the interaction inside the slit, which is not the case.

>This is a very basic simulation, it's not very difficult to understand.

It's not about understanding but also about recreating. Try to post your C code of the whole setup for us to judge.

>seem to get why changing the dimensions of the problem changes the physics that is relevant

This example is, if it were not for the quantum effects that OP tries to disprove, independent of scale (nm, um or km) and dependant only on geometry and the laws of motion.

>>10197625
Who the fuck said this?
No matter what interpretation you believe, the whole idea is that interference occurs when you quantize these phenomena and talk about their movement in waves. If you have an apparatus to measure when each particle comes in through what slit, the interference pattern is broken and there is a clear deterministic evolution of position towards spots on the wall corresponding to integer scalars of the wavelength

The two big points of quantum mechanics are that when quantizing, observation is not free, because it makes some information completely meaningless, and that in the foundations, there is a fundamental nonlocality among particles with effects that propagate at super luminal speeds. This is why bell’s inequality is a good proof of nonlocality but bad as an anti hidden variable proof; it fails to appreciate that each particle has more than a single dependence, where when you carry out the bohmian calculation, you actually agree with the results experimentally.

I bet the reason OP wont share the code is because he hardcoded that pattern and it's not bouncing balls at all.

>>10197669
The problem is that classical entities can be observed in full without any effects on their behavior. Quantizing a system makes it very sensitive to observation since observation itself has quantum analogue. You could track a particle all the way, but at each step you lose a lot of information relevant to its first trajectory. Even in a deterministic evolution, you lose so much information that randomness is needed to make up for what we don’t know at any given time. The problem is that you’re trying to impose classical behavior on quantum particles without realizing that constant observation *actually* has an effect.

The problem arises when you have to ask

Is quantum mechanics a theory about measurement? If so, you probably believe in Copenhagen

Is quantum mechanics a theory about wavefunctions only? You probably believe in many worlds.

Is quantum mechanics a theory about the evolution of how particles move? You probably believe in bohmian mechanics.

It’s worth noting that Bohm’s theory and orthodox theory give the exact same predictions, but bohmian mechanics had to fight against a torrent of scientists who wanted to push quantum weirdness a la Bohr for decades. Everett had his PhD tampered with because he was didn’t agree with Copenhagen. Quantum mechanics is a highly politicized series of debates around theory and ontology

>>10197675
See >>10199150
For why bell’s quantum argument fails to disprove pilot wave/bohmian mechanics

>>10197016
When the electron is fired... it's hitting off the edge, going straight through and bouncing off itselves.

>>10197016
Nigga, the problem of classical mechanics is ultraviolet catastrophe, not double slit experiment.

>>10199166
An attempt to block classical to push pop /sci/ tripe.

>>10199203
Lol this isn’t popsci. Foundations of quantum mechanics is still debated in mathematical physics and other physics circles. Your average physicist uses whatever works to help them get a calculation done. My position to side with bohmian mechanics is more or less a hipster position in the greater world of physics. Many people really still think no HV theorems hold despite a lot of papers being released to show otherwise

I wish the world worked classically when you quantize, but it doesn’t really. You run into heavy problems that took a lot of roundabout mathematics to make sense of, like how position only makes sense using the measure of a Dirac delta distribution, like how some observables have spectral values but no actual eigenvalues since they’re not square integrable, like how there needs to be a necessary collapse in any quantum theory or else we get horseshit for the measurement problem, etc. The truth is that people have a limit to what they can observe at a time when things are quantized, which should come to little surprise. The surprise is being able to observe anything at all. The macro scale (what schrodinger called a grotesque macroscopic model) might obey quantum effects, but a lot of the behavior around observation collapsing the wavefunction doesn’t actually change when the system is large (greater than 10 nanometers iirc)

>>10199166
>The problem is that classical entities can be observed in full without any effects on their behavior.
EPR experiment does indirect measurement.

>Is quantum mechanics a theory about measurement? If so, you probably believe in Copenhagen
>Is quantum mechanics a theory about wavefunctions only? You probably believe in many worlds.
>Is quantum mechanics a theory about the evolution of how particles move? You probably believe in bohmian mechanics.
It's about all of that. About everything related to quantum mechanics.

>>10197016
>This is not a troll.
Doth protests too much, young shit poster!

>>10199234
It not a debate, it's just jews boosting their publications.

>>10199039
>which is more likely:
>-code you won't share has a bug in it
>-quantum physics is wrong

I've posted two links to two different sites with the code retard.

>>10199234
>like how there needs to be a necessary collapse in any quantum theory or else we get horseshit for the measurement problem
It's the other way around. Collapse itself causes the measurement problem. The problem doesn't exist without collapse.

>>10199159
>I bet the reason OP wont share the code is because he hardcoded that pattern and it's not bouncing balls at all.

I shared the code in the first 5 minutes faggot.

Op here ,

To all you fags saying I am misleading you and being upset and mistrustful. I'm the one who was mislead. I watched videos and looked at dozens of pictures and articles about this experiment.i saw the classical treatment was presented inconsistently, so I thought it would be interesting to do a little experiment myself.

I should be upset. I should be mistrustful. It was I who was fooled for so long

How can I be fooling you? I answered all questions and posted the code. Just paste it into Excel. I'm sure someone here at least has a job and a company computer always has Excel.

>>10199372
Won't modify it to suit appropriate conditions yourself, when you are the one saying you invalidated the nessesity of QM for the experiment. How about you go fucking show a professor and get your fucking Nobel prize already moron.

>>10199266
It does, but bell’s inequality (and hardy, and von Neumann, and GHZ, etc) show how their assumptions of locality screw up a lot of the relationships. In non relativistic quantum mechanics, and particularly the foundations, you can’t get rid of non locality, which is why you have to actually account for all the dependencies. Bell had 6 things he was tracking, but he actually needed to track 18 if he wanted the full agreement with the experiments.

Quantum mechanics is about all of that, but we have to decide on it’s big ontology. Believing it’s just about measurement leads us to claims about how reality doesn’t exist without an observer, which leads to a lot of problems because it’s so extreme and vague. Believing that all is wave leads to the measurement problem. Etc etc.

>>10198071
boson sampling can be simulated with coherent states---> not quantum

>>10198092
Not OP, but i agree with your interpretation. This is very likely a statistical result of the particular set up and OPs lack of critical thinking.

>>10198237
no, and that's the point dumbass.
>Inb4 the bell theorem is the same as colored balls you randomly choose and send over the mail

>>10198106
Woah OP, you are kinda dense aren't you? That anon is talking about incident ANGLES. All you are talking about is the sign change of the vy, but didnt adress the angle and its effect on the refelction count (which would lead to a statistical distribution at the other end).

>>10199391
>t. How about you go fucking show a professor

I did faggot. I showed the department chair of my University who is also a quantum physics researcher for 40 years.

His response is similar to allot of the negative ones here. He says if a dimension goes to zero or infinity it might not be a interference pattern anymore.

I've stated I agree with this already. The fact remains for finite parameters it's still an interference pattern.

>>10197019
If your photon only goes through one slit how the fuck would you see a difference with or without two slits? That's the point of the experiment

>>10199327
No, the problem is about superposition that arises in a wave only quantum theory. You can’t get a meaningful measurement if you treat the state as the linear combination. You would end up getting no measure or a “simultaneous” measure of all state, but as we know, there are probabilities associated with eigenstates for which we can measure. The measurement problem addressed in shcrodinger’s paper (and wigner’s letters) discussed this fundamental hole in the theory of their day.

>>10199413
dude get fucked then lol, you're just wrong

>>10199411
THIS

>>10199483

ok I'll address

>>10199411

the problem is this concern isnt being presented coherently. What does the reflection count matter? It's not what is being counted at the detector.

What do you mean statistical distribution? which statistical distribution? There are many.

if you can prove what you are saying or atleast explain it coherently I'll listen, otherwise its just hand waving.

hurr durr ... i found an integer number in the system so therefore it's statistical

>>10199396
>you can’t get rid of non locality
That doesn't follow from bell theorem. The theorem considers only hidden variables model, locality without hidden variables violates bell inequation just fine.

>Quantum mechanics is about all of that, but we have to decide on it’s big ontology. Believing it’s just about measurement leads us to claims about how reality doesn’t exist without an observer
A theory should still decide on all relevant questions.

>>10199425
>You would end up getting no measure or a “simultaneous” measure of all state
Math gives different answer. Observer entangles with the system and observes everything just fine.

>>10199499
The reason for why you see what you see, why it doesn't correspond to what you see in the actual double slit experiment and why this means your results do not disprove quantum mechanics have been told to you many times over. Among all the shit-talking and idiots there's usually some goodwill around here to tell people where they've gone wrong. However, you are either unable or unwilling to understand the arguments presented to you. This means the discussion isn't going anywhere and there's no point in talking to you further.

>>10199499
I literally posted a picture to explain this to you.

When the initial angle crosses a threshold such that the number of reflections changes, that means the exit trajectory changes discontinuously at that angle. So the trajectories entering right below that angle appear in one band, and the trajectories entering right above that angle appear in another band.

>>10199514
>However, you are either unable or unwilling to understand the arguments presented to you

there is no argument. Like I said it's just an observation of an integer number of reflections, then some vague tie from that to statistics. Statistics is a very large subset of mathematics BTW. Im not going to put an argument together for you.

For finite dimensions the classical system results in a interference pattern. I don't even care how its created. thats not particularly relevant beyond the fact that the classical system is so profoundly misrepresented when the case for the necessity of quantum physics is made.

>>10199558
>I literally posted a picture to explain this to you.

you mean the picture of what looks like a optical fibre? so? it just supports my argument, and my simulation results. There is nothing quantum mechanical about a fibre optical cable. It's all classical.

>>10199558
maybe he should try running the simulation on a quantum computer lmao

>>10199567
I've also tried to explain this before, and why it's important to have results with one slit covered. You can't call it an interference pattern just because there's bands.

>>10199575
Do you see the banding structure of the rays when they exit?

Do you disagree that this banding is due to different numbers of reflections?

>>10199567
HOW ABOUT YOU RUN THE SIMULATION WITH ONLY ONE SLIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. GUESS WHAT, YOU WILL GET PARTIAL INTERFERENCE DISTRIBUTION.

>>10199586
>Do you see the banding structure of the rays when they exit?

yes I do. Is this a classical system? If it is it just supports my argument that a classical system can produce an interference pattern.

The particular mechanism is not relevant to me beyond if the underlying model is classical or quantum.

>>10198273
>god you are retarded. the code is posted.
Everyone here knows QM hasn't been disproven, so there's no point in putting in the effort to run your "simulation" The point is for you to do it yourself and realize you're wrong

>>10199590
>HOW ABOUT YOU RUN THE SIMULATION WITH ONLY ONE SLIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. GUESS WHAT, YOU WILL GET PARTIAL INTERFERENCE DISTRIBUTION.

Why don't you, captain capslock? are you dumb? can't simulate a classical system? BTW my code was written in less than 1 day. And you can just recycle 90% of my code to accomplish it.

>>10199595
Distinct bands is not the same thing as an interference pattern. How many times do I have to repeat this?

>>10199611
>Distinct bands is not the same thing as an interference pattern. How many times do I have to repeat this?

I don't care what you call it or exactly how the pattern is produced. Do you understand?

>>10198287
it's not an interference pattern. it's just the middle wall blocking balls. you need more than 2 maxima for a pattern.

>>10199618
So you don't care that you can't actually reproduce experiments that were actually run?

>>10199607
Why are you not trying to prove yourself right by just testing it, I don't understand!?!? That is not science!

>>10198829
A pool table works when you have only one ball on it dummy.

>>10199618
>>10199607
Jesus fuck you are the worst kind of idiot.

>I don't care what you call it or exactly how the pattern is produced
That's convenient because you want to call it an interference pattern and say it's produced analogously to the quantum double slit experiment. It isn't an interference pattern and the way it's produced is not analogous to the quantum double slit experiment.

If you don't care about that then there is no reason for you to have made this thread.

If you don't care that your simulation doesn't actually show what it claims for you to show, and say it's someone else's job to say it shows what you say it shows, then that goes double.

It has finally been solved. We can all go home. OP is not a scientist. OP doesn't care about the mechanism causing it? Doesn't care what you call it? Doesn't care about...anything? Why? Because he uh was mistaken!

>>10199624
>>10199626
>>10199622

>So you don't care that you can't actually reproduce experiments that were actually run?

I don't even know what this baiting bullshit is supposed to mean.

Let me reiterate my point with this thread

>be op
>review double-slit experiment
>be told classical case it just silhouette or gaussian of two slits.
>told an interference pattern is impossible classically
>think its a bit over simplified and dismissive of classical mechanics
>bored at work anyways
>write code to simulate
>get result that that was claimed to be impossible, nothing like how the classical case is presented in literature.
>go home
>answer questions
>sleep
>wake up
>answer questions
>do laundry
>watch tv
>answer questions
>answer more question
>retards who cant write a simple line of VBA harass me and knit pick obviously radically different results than presented in literature, bait me for hours even though the code is posted and variants or the initial simulation are trivial changes that would take minutes.
>DGAF ima simulate what I want when I feel like it.

>>10199633
>That's convenient because you want to call it an interference pattern

well, it just looks exactly like one, sorry bro. I'm just not up to your standards.

>>10199651
>I don't even know what this baiting bullshit is supposed to mean.
What I mean is, your simulation can't reproduce the results of experiments that have been done. See:
>>10197925

Does this not bother you?

>all these butthurt phsyics nerds mad their "science" has been debunked and that theyve wasted their lives

based op

>>10199633

looks close enough to an interference pattern to me.

>>10199651
You're repeating yourself guy. Just do the science.

>>10198704
Finally smart post and OP choses to ignore it.
Well done.

>>10197672
your computer is 100% quantum sorry, even the "classical" one obey quantum logic and not "classical" logic.

>>10198985
The burden of proof is actually on anyone purporting QM as legitimate, since you cannot prove a negative, and if QM is unfalsifiable it is not scientific in nature, but rather religious in nature. If double slit can be explained classically, why is QM necessary? It's not.

>>10199668
Wrong anon, this is a psuedo science tier claim. We can make processors work, but we don't know how it is they work, like a monky might learn to use make and use a spear, but he doesn't know the quantum or even classical mechanics involved in why the spear flies so well through the air.
Quantum Mechanics is a proposed solution for CPU, but that's it, a hypothesis, a guess.

>>10199668
Intel/AMD does not use quantum math to build household CPUs, classical only. You're wrong, that's misinformation that you ate up like a retard.

>>10199687
>If double slit can be explained classically, why is QM necessary?
This would be a point against QM, if the double slit actually could be explained classically. But, as I've already explained, the vast majority of electrons in real experimental setups would go through the slits without any reflection off the walls. So the classical picture predicts a band in front of each slit.

>>10199668
What is a flip flop?

>>10199687
There is no way you're saying this in good faith, is there? This is just false. The only places where in which negative claims are proven is in science and maths. The real burden of proof falls on who makes the claim and in this case it is OP. Science is discourse and that is what some of this is. When OP is not proving his claim in multiple ways, he is not participating in the discourse.

>>10199697
>without any reflection
How can you prove they don't reflect? I've read a few of the double slit papers and none of them prove how many times the photons reflect or prove that they pass through with no reflection, in fact.

>>10199703
He proved his initial claim in his op and following posts though. so since it's explained classically, you need to prove that the observations made aren't classical.

>>10199720
>How can you prove they don't reflect?
Trigonometry.
>>10198299
>>10198329
>>10198410
Use trigonometry to find out the angles that allow the electron to enter the slit, and use the same trigonometry to figure out the angles that allow the electron to pass through without reflection at all.

>I've disproved Quantum physics.

>>10199413
HE TRIED IT

>>10197016
i've never learned QM after trying so all I can say is good luck I can't tell if ur right or wrong

>>10199723
He hasn't modified the simulation as per requested by many. He has not proven anything with his verbal arguments. This is experimental physics. He needs to recreate the simulation with different conditions. His claim is extraordinary. Give me evidence that is likewise.

>>10199748
Absolute madman

Also the fucking state of /sci/ physics is absolutely abysmal.

>>10199748

I did research with the department chair in QM years ago. We are cool. It's not a big deal

Make a new thread I'm loving it