/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11905625
Light's a wave

>>11905625
Light's a wave

>>11905625
Light's a wave

Light is gay.

>>11905625
An electron feels both holes and wobbles through one of them indecisively giving a diffraction-like pattern

>>11905625
everything is a wave, measurements are quantasized
https://youtu.be/RwdY7Eqyguo?t=14m40s

Is it correct to say that the wave/particle duality problem exists only because light is neither a wave nor a particle? We're trying to fit light into boxes it doesn't belong in.

Has /sci/ taken the pilot wave pill?

I don't know senpai, one slit is enough to me.

wait i dont get it. why the fuck is anyone saying light is a particle in the first place? why cant the photoelectric effect be explained by waves?

>>11905625

An interference pattern is the classical result as well. It's trivial.

>>11908248
>An interference pattern is the classical result as well. It's trivial.
really ? how ? I've never hear that before

>>11908336

Here's the simulation results

>>11908336

Here's the system setup. It's just a hard ball bouncing around

>>11908402
>>11908406
what equations are you using ?

>>11908414
>what equations are you using ?

A hard ball just bounces around. Simple Newtonian mechanics.

>>11908402
>>11908406
>>11908464
pilot wave theory ?

>>11908475
>pilot wave theory ?

No. Just rectilinear motion and reflection at a wall.

>>11908486
How you explain the interference pattern? What happens if you close the other slit?

>>11908500
>How you explain the interference pattern?

Shit bounces elasticity yo

>What happens if you close the other slit?

Don't remember.

>>11908402
I was here to witness Anon btfo quantum nerds.

>>11905625
Light's a gas

>>11908402
>>11908406
You seem smart Anon. With this in mind, what are the odds that all so called quantum phenomenon are really the result of botched experimental design and poor modeling?

>>11908500
>What happens if you close the other slit?
Mr.Tooker where you is, we need your expertise

>>11908568
>You seem smart Anon. With this in mind, what are the odds that all so called quantum phenomenon are really the result of botched experimental design and poor modeling

All. Here's a classical derivation for the results of the Bell experiment.

>>11908406
why cant the hard ball be detected?

>>11908839
>why cant the hard ball be detected?

The hard ball is easily detected.

>>11905625
light is heavy

>>11908406
Can you provide the code?

>>11908871
>Can you provide the code?

Maybe later. The results are pretty obvious if you just trace out a few iterations by hand.

>>11908852
claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

>>11905625
I'm an "actual" scientist

my honest opinion is still that we live in a simulation, or some

>>11908911
>claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Jesus fucking Christ I posted my simulation results your mouth breathing omega semi moron

>>11908911
How does that invite exploration of concepts?

Light scales infinitely in both directions and is just reflecting off the walls of the slits.

>>11908934
what simulator do you use? not the guy you were talking to but interested in learning about this

>>11905625

Can anyone break down the hardware used for actually "observing" which seems to change the state of electrons? this has always been a question of mine, and while relevant, has not been answered in years

>>11905625
Proves Bohmian mechanics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

>>11908905
>a few iterations by hand.
hard pass

SAGE

>>11908934
irl you stupid nigger, why the fuck would i debate what happens on your gay computer? the parallel between your hard balls and light in real life does not exist. hard balls of light in real life cannot be detected

>>11905648
>>11905653
>>11905659
>>11905660
>>11906509
>>11907410
>>11908248
>>11908336
>>11908402
>>11908406
>>11908414
>>11908464
>>11908475
>>11908500
>>11908508
>>11908549
>>11908559
>>11908568
>>11908585
>>11908638
>>11908852
>>11908869
>>11908871
>>11908920
>>11908934
>>11909042
>>11909050
>>11909054
>>11909115
It's all in String Theory™
Please keep the grant money flowing.

>>11905647
>Light is gay.
I've been saying this for years

>>11906509
based, cameltoe thread now

>>11908402
>>11908406
No, with your set up there isn't a 100% probability that the ball will fly through either slit each time, it could smack into the wall of the material that the slits are in and bounce back but that literally never happens, if flows through the slits every single time IRL because it is NOT a ball bouncing around inside the slits.
Go to university and study QM because there is no classical analogy of "tiny balls" that you can make that work with experimental results.

>>11908638
Holy shit dud I remember you. You're wrong and got BTFO by that other anon a few weeks ago.

>>11909042
>what simulator do you use?

It's just VBA. Like I said it's just a bouncing ball it's extremely easy.

>>11909115
>hard pass

I can't make your brain work for you.

>>11909148
>the parallel between your hard balls and light in real life does not exist.

He's such an omega semi-moron he doesn't realize the double slit experiment is for electrons not photons, which can classically be represented by bouncing balls

>>11910058
>You're wrong

I'm still waiting for someone to point out the error.

>>11910080
You were already BTFO in the other 5 threads you made a few weeks ago.
Also >>11910057

>>11910094

My definition of Being BTFO would be if someone pointed out en error in my derivation. That never happened.

>>11910057
>No, with your set up there isn't a 100% probability that the ball will fly through either slit each time

You are correct. It can approach the front wall and bounce back never to hit the detector. What's your point?

>>11910124
I just did

>>11910127
>You are correct. It can approach the front wall and bounce back never to hit the detector. What's your point?
That doesn't happen IRL when we run the experiments. In real life it hits the detector every single time in the same amount of time.
Computer simulations aren't real physical experiments.

>>11910129
>I just did

No. You didn't.

>>11910134
>That doesn't happen IRL when we run the experiments. In real life it hits the detector every single time in the same amount of time.

Ok. Give a citation for that. It seems completely unreasonable.

>>11910141
>Ok. Give a citation for that. It seems completely unreasonable.
It doesn't matter if it seems "completely unreasonable" to you given your framework that light are little balls. Light isn't little balls, it's a wave, which is why it is able to flow through both slits every time, interfere with itself every time, and make the interference pattern every time, and takes the same amount of time to do so every time we fire a photon. It is completely easily understandable when you actually accept what is going on. Same with electrons, or even large molecules consistenting of dozens (or even hundreds) of atoms. ALL of them behave this way EVERY time, because they are all waves, not 'little balls'.
>citation
This immediately shows you've never even set up and done a double slit experiment because if you had, you'd know that it hits the detector every single time. This is fucking sophomore physics lab stuff, anon.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27413728/single_photon_paper.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

You can do it yourself it doesn't cost much at all to set up a double slit experiment and see that every single time the particle smacks into the detector in the back and makes the "click click" sounds.

>>11910197
>It doesn't matter if it seems "completely unreasonable" to you given your framework that light are little balls. Light isn't little balls, it's a wave

Dude, get a fucking clue. The double slit experiment in the op is for ELECTRONS not light.

>>11910209
Electrons also flow through the slit every time and interfere with themselves every time in the same way.
Same with entire atoms as well as molecules consisting of many atoms.

>>11910211
>Electrons also flow

Like water? You really need to just stop talking.

>>11910225
>Like water?
like a wave.
>You really need to just stop talking.
No. You're wrong about how these things propagate across spacetime. They aren't little balls that are bouncing back and forth inside the walls of the double slit. That is not what is happening and that is not what experiments show.

>>11910230
You sound like this troll that keeps following me around side. Because of a few reasons. One is you have little to no self-awareness. The second is at you are obviously deranged. if you had self-awareness you would realize the justification for conceptualizing electron as a wave comes from the results of the double slit experiment. What I have shown is that if you just conceptualize electrons as particles, like little hard balls bouncing elastically off of boundaries you still get an interference pattern. The point is you don't need to conceptualize an electron as a wave to get an interference pattern. If you had any form of self-awareness or knowledge about the philosophy of science you would already understand this

>>11910251
You have no idea what you're talking about, I clearly just showed how your vision of them as little balls does not work with experiment.
I have a thorough understanding of the philosophy of science and philosophy in general. You are wrong. You are not seething that your conceptualizing doesn't even work and I clearly showed why (because it would mean there is a probability that the ball would bounce backwards which does not happen, because it's not a ball).
Your conceptualization does not work, because it's not what is happening.

>>11910275

You are using the false conclusions from a poorly setup experiment to justify barking at any other interpersonal of that experiment. Let me walk you through this step by step.

We want to design an experiment that shows if an electron is a particle or a wave.

We choose to use the double slit experiment.

The assumption is that if an electron is a wave of probabilities then it will create an interference pattern.

Another assumption is that If an electron is just a particle and like a small hard ball it will not have an interference pattern. ( This is actually wrong as I've demonstrated)

We conduct the experiment.

It shows an interference pattern!

Thus the electron is a wave of probabilities!( But this is wrong since a classical hard ball also creates an interference pattern)

50 years later an omega semi-moron on /sci/. Can't even think of a particle as a hard ball, and uses this assumption to stupidly argue against the real results of the double slit experiment.

The real results are that the experiment doesn't prove anything, since a particle or wave will create an interference pattern

>>11905625
"particles" constructively and destructively interfere like waves
that's it

>>11910070
>still no code to show

Bravo

>>11910443

Try using your brain. A hard ball either enters a sit or not . When it comes out it will have it's original velocity or that velocity mirrored vertically. Therefore it will go down or up when it exits the slit , Thus creating an interference pattern. The middle lobe is when an particle exits the top slit going down plus when a particle exits the bottom slit going up. They " interfere" constructively in the middle. The side lobes are created when the particle exits with the other velocity. It's really trivial.

>>11910379
Why is "particles" in quotes?

>>11910338
Holy shit you fucking idiot.

If the particles were balls, then it wouldn't behave the same way as if it were waves. That's the point. Balls do not always fly through the double slit whereas waves DO always fly through the double slit.

And when we run experiments, the particles always go through the double slit, because they aren't balls, but waves. When we set up a detector behind the gun that shoot electrons, it never goes off, and the detector behind the double slits goes off every single time for each electron.

Electrons and other particles aren't balls, they're waves.

>>11910477
Only one particle is shot off at a time

>>11911250
>Only one particle is shot off at a time

Yes, I know. My simulation is for one ball at a time. One ball at a time creates an interference pattern.

>>11911244
>If the particles were balls, then it wouldn't behave the same way as if it were waves.

But they both create an interference pattern. I've proven that.

>>11909750
w0t the fuck why tag so many posts

this thread has way too much autism i can't keep up

>>11905625
The double slit experiment and consciousness are completely unrelated phenomena. All resources saying otherwise are either intentionally misleading or inaccurate due to the analogies/simplifications they make to communicate the ideas better. The double slit experiment doesn’t care whether or not a conscious entity is performing the measurement. All the electrons care about is whether or not their paths can be uniquely determined.

Quantum mechanism cares about consciousness in the same way Bayesian statistics cares about consciousness: it doesn’t.

>>11911262
Quick, what movie is that from? I remember seeing it as a kid and I’ve never been able to remember what it’s called.

>>11911276
THE LANGOLIERS NIGGER

>>11908336
>>11908475
>>11908549
>>11908568
ehh all this highschooler redditors. fuck this board

>>11911277
My sincerest thanks for ending my 10 year long quest faggot.

>>11911289

>>11905647
More like bi

>>11905625
subatomic particles are just expressions of probability. as far as nonlocality each particle exists in all states at once, not only in our 3 spacial dimensions, but also in time. When we interact with a particle we get a random result. This random result can tell us which "universe" we're in. Universe in this context just means how the world currently is and doesn't mean there is a multiverse. each subatomic particle has a rope attached that goes through a tunnel back to the beginning of time. affecting this rope can affect the entire timeline of this particle as well as any particle that became entangled or will become entangled with it. whenever people try to use this phenomenon to send messages back in time it creates a paradox. time loops an indefinite number of times until the paradox is resolved by random quantum effects bubbling up to a macroscopic scale. we live in a universe where time travel is possible, but the it keeps resetting until no one is uses it.