Disproved Quantum Physics

[Anonymous No.10202263]

Quantum physicists never understood the double-slit experiment from a classical perspective.

I simulated the double slit setup and got an interference pattern with the particles just being hard balls that bounce off walls elastically. One ball at a time worked fine.

I tooled around with the parameter and found only if you take them too the extreme does the pattern disappear.

I've summarized the two approaches to the double-slit experiment in pic related.

[Anonymous No.10202294]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10202312]

>>10202263
Interference pattern still persists even when shooting particles through one at a time and detecting one at a time on screen. The interference happens at the slits and propogates out.

[Anonymous No.10202328]

>>10202312

Seems like it would just be a blob about the Origin I'm that case, but I haven't simulated it . Why?

[Anonymous No.10202347]

>>10202263
Holy shit, you are retarded. Quantum physicists did the experiment in the real world, so why don't you replicate those real world parameters? Because you're a delusional retard, that's why.

[Anonymous No.10202348]

What happens if you cover one slit?

[Anonymous No.10202354]

>>10202347

I know they did it in the real world. I accept the real world results. I just want to point out that the results aren't impossible classicaly. In fact they are expected.

[Anonymous No.10202358]

>>10202354
So you actually havent disproved shit

[Anonymous No.10202365]

>>10202354
How do the balls/particles cause inference via a classical mechanism? Like what causes them to deviate in flight to the detector to produce the int pattern?

[Anonymous No.10202366]

>>10202358
>So you actually havent disproved shit

The argument for the be necessity of quantum mechanics involves the impossibly of classical mechanics to explain the interference pattern from the double slit experiment

[Anonymous No.10202369]

>>10202366
So what happens when you cover one slit?

[Anonymous No.10202377]

>>10202354
They are impossible classically under the real world parameters that the experiments were done. Making a model in which the parameters are changed to create a bias towards deflecting the particles in certain directions has nothing to do with the interference pattern.

[Anonymous No.10202379]

>>10202377
>They are impossible classically under the real world parameters that the experiments were done

Can you prove it? What is so special about the real world parameters?

[Anonymous No.10202381]

>>10202366
Then show that your model reproduces the interference pattern under the correct parameters. You won't, because you know it fails.

[Anonymous No.10202384]

>>10202263
OK now come up with a reproducible empirical experiment to verify your currently-theoretical conjecture.

[Anonymous No.10202387]

>>10202381

What are they?

[Anonymous No.10202388]

Why are you irgnoring my question? Let's try again

[math]\color{red}{WHAT\ HAPPENS\ WHEN\ YOU\ COVER\ ONE\ SLIT?????}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10202389]

>>10202379
>Can you prove it?
I already did in the last thread. Changing the parameters to reduce the ability of the slit to cause bouncing results in no interference pattern. The burden of proof is now on you.

>What is so special about the real world parameters?
They make the effect you've shown impossible.

You're the one who made the claim that you've reproduced the effect, but that claim is a lie if the parameters under which the real effect was observed were not replicated.

[Anonymous No.10202391]

>>10202384
>OK now come up with a reproducible empirical experiment to verify your currently-theoretical conjecture

The double slit experiment has been done and I accept the results. I'm just explaining them classically

[Anonymous No.10202401]

>>10202387
http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm

[Anonymous No.10202408]

>>10202391
>I'm just explaining them classically
nope

[Anonymous No.10202420]

>>10202391
Your explanation relies on completely different parameters than what achieved the real result, so your model doesn't explain it. Why do you keep ignoring this?

[Anonymous No.10202433]

>>10202420
>Your explanation relies on completely different parameters

I'm sure they are. But you realize it not one set of parameters that creates this pattern classically? I haven't tuned the results from hours of trial and error. They are pretty flexible as long as things don't start going to zero or infinity

[Anonymous No.10202446]

>>10202433
>I'm sure they are. But you realize it not one set of parameters that creates this pattern classically?
None of the experiments were done under the parameters you've shown the effect. Your logic is backwards. You need to show that your model produces the effect under all conditions it was observed under in real life. It only takes one set of parameters under which your model fails to reproduce the effect to say that your explanation fails.

>I haven't tuned the results from hours of trial and error. They are pretty flexible as long as things don't start going to zero or infinity
They didn't go to zero or infinity in real life. Until you reproduce the effect under real life conditions, you can't claim to have explained anything.

[Anonymous No.10202450]

>>10202433
Make the slits short enough so that the particles don't get reflected on the inside and report back
Also >>10202388

[Anonymous No.10202471]

>>10202446
>parameters that creates this pattern classically?
>None of the experiments were done under the parameters you've shown the effect

Like I said they are flexible. If the distance from the detector and the distance from the source are approximately equal . The detector will get an interference pattern.

[Anonymous No.10202472]

>>10202450
>Make the slits short enough so that the particles don't get reflected on the inside and report back

So basically remove the slits? Explain to me how the slits in the experiment had zero length.

[Anonymous No.10202491]

>>10202471
>Like I said they are flexible. If the distance from the detector and the distance from the source are approximately equal .
No, they're not. I've already shown that you fail to see the effect by changing the parameters. If you actually believe this then show it, otherwise you admit that your explanation fails.

[Anonymous No.10202497]

>>10202491
>No, they're not. I've already shown that you fail to see the effect by changing the parameters

What parameters do you propose? I'll tell you right now. Zero and infinity will destroy the pattern. Do you have anything sensible?

[Anonymous No.10202507]

Why don't you try launching balls at the slits straight, so kinda like what your parents hoped your sexuality would be.

[Anonymous No.10202510]

>>10202507

That's not the system that's described in the literature. It shown the particles are aimed at the spot between the two slits

[Tuba Jam !!+Q/vU207C0N No.10202513]

>>10202263
If this becomes big, let it be known that I was here. Please include this in any screencaps or footage.

[Anonymous No.10202530]

>>10202497
I already gave you the exact way the experiment was originally performed: >>10202401

[Anonymous No.10202546]

>>10202510
Literature should also describe the same happening with laser light that shoots pretty straight at usual distances. So why don't you try shooting straight?

[Anonymous No.10202554]

Oh now, what happened to the epic center maximum? It was supposed to be the most intense too.
Do you see the problem now?

[Anonymous No.10202581]

>>10202554
Reminder that this is still exaggerated. In reality, the particle source would be much farther away and even less particles would get reflected on the inside of the slits

[Anonymous No.10202598]

>>10202554
>Do you see the problem now?

No. In the experimental setup from the illustrations, the detector is an equal length from the slit as the slit is to the source. Your results still are not how quantum physicists present the classical problem. I see waves of probability in a classical case still, just like experiment.

[Anonymous No.10202603]

>>10202581
>In reality, the particle source would be much farther away

How much further?

[Anonymous No.10202618]

>>10202598
Ok Anon, then where are the other maxima? In my picture you get a maximum of 4 (3 if the screen is the same distance as the source)

[Anonymous No.10202630]

>>10202618

That's light, man.

[Anonymous No.10202634]

>>10202630
Ooops

[Anonymous No.10202650]

>>10202630
Also here http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018
There are all parameters you need. I will call bullshit on this until you can reproduce this image

[Anonymous No.10202706]

>>10202650

"The double slit was located 30.5 cm for the collimation slit."

A movable detection slit, 5 µm wide × 3 mm tall, was located 240 ± 5 mm from the double slit."

This is from the paper.

From this I conclude my setup is correct. The double slit is as far from the source as it is from the detector. I've faithfully recreated the experiment.

[Anonymous No.10202711]

>>10202706
Where are the additional maxima? Stop ignoring half of what I say.

[Anonymous No.10202727]

>>10202706
>30.5 cm distance
>5 µm wide slit
>From this I conclude my setup is correct.
LOL

[Anonymous No.10202728]

>>10202711
>Where are the additional maxima? Stop ignoring half of what I say

They are using a collimation slit before the double slit. I didn't. If I used a second slit I'd get twice the peaks too.

[Anonymous No.10202729]

>>10202706
Why don't you plug a whole bunch of different parameters for slits and distances and then show us the results then? It's a simulation with easily manipulatable parameters right?

[Anonymous No.10202734]

>>10202727

As long as the length of the slit is significantly longer than the particle it doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.10202740]

>>10202734
Why don't you prove it?

[Anonymous No.10202742]

@10202734
It does matter you fucking retard, but at this point I'm sure that you're just baiting for those delicious (You)s

[Anonymous No.10202748]

>>10202729
>Why don't you plug a whole bunch of different parameters for slits and distances and then show us the results then?

Because I'm recreating the double slit experiment. Why do I need to run many other experiments for you? What is the point?

I've said many times if you make the parameters extreme the pattern disappears.

[Anonymous No.10202753]

>>10202263
>it's a "reasonably smart high schooler over estimates his very limited knowledge and thinks he disproved __insert random field of science__" thread
No, just no.

[Anonymous No.10202760]

>>10202748
>I've said many times if you make the parameters extreme the pattern disappears.
So it doesn't work. lol

[Anonymous No.10202767]

>>10202742
>>10202740

Why don't you prove it? I went to work and ran the simulations again down to the point the slit was the same length as the particle. Results only changed slightly.

[Anonymous No.10202772]

>>10202748
>Because I'm recreating the double slit experiment. Why do I need to run many other experiments for you? What is the point?
You're not recreating it when you refuse to put the fucking double slit parameters from >>10202650
When somebody points it out it suddenly doesn't fucking matter.

Better yet, double slit isn't the experiment, it's an experiment. Many version of it were run with different parameters and your simulation needs to account for every combination that happened in the real world. In fact a scientist would naturally input a whole bunch of parameters out of curiosity and not go with one combination that looks somewhat like the proper pattern and tell everyone how he destroyed quantum physics.

Also yes, the patterns are extreme given TINY FUCKING HOLES of micrometer width.

[Anonymous No.10202779]

>>10202760
>So it doesn't work. lol

It work when it faithfully simulates the double slit setup. I'm talking about a dimension going to zero or infinity, when I say the pattern disappears

[Anonymous No.10202782]

>>10202748
>I've said many times if you make the parameters extreme the pattern disappears.
wow it's almost like classical physics only breaks down at very small scales or something

[Anonymous No.10202784]

>>10202779
No it doesn't. The number of maxima is wrong

[Anonymous No.10202789]

>>10202772
>You're not recreating it when you refuse to put the fucking double slit parameters from >>10202650 #
>When somebody points it out it suddenly doesn't fucking matter.

Use logic, bra. Look at the op. As long as the slit is centered between the source and detector and the slit length is longer than the particle size you get interference. This is the setup given in the paper.

You are just in denial saying since I didn't put in exactly 30.5 cm and 29cm I'm fooling you

[Anonymous No.10202792]

>>10202789

[Anonymous No.10202794]

>>10202784
>No it doesn't. The number of maxima is wrong

Like I said they used cascading slits, so it's really not exactly the same. I do predict more Maxima if I put in more slits. Look at the OP .

[Anonymous No.10202800]

>>10202794
>interference with a single slit
Yikes

[Anonymous No.10202819]

[Anonymous No.10202856]

>>10202819
Come on OP disprove my shit. And don't tell me you can't use superposition in your experiment when all you're doing is throwing balls into either slit one at a time, with classic physics approach. Hell your whole deal fails at the superposition part completely because there is no way the 2 slit result would be something else than addition of the results for each slit.

All you're doing is bouncing your fucking balls so any that enters either slit has similar Y speed component and it exits it from mostly the same place at either vy or -vy, so shooting to either side of the slit, with 2 just being setup so your shots concentrate in the middle because YOU SETUP IT THIS SPECIFIC WAY SO DETECTOR DISTANCE EQUALS SOURCE DISTANCE AND SO THEY NATURALLY MEET IN THE MIDDLE. Real double slit would have maximum in the middle regardless of those distance because waves would have the same phase anyway.

[Anonymous No.10202857]

>>10202263
Let me ask you this, how does the born rule fit into your picture? Cause if you can't introduce it then this is a nonstarter, there has to be something distinguishing experiments in which whether or not you have information about which slit the particle passes through affects the result.

[Anonymous No.10202897]

>>10202856
>YOU SETUP IT THIS SPECIFIC WAY SO DETECTOR DISTANCE EQUALS SOURCE DISTANCE AND SO THEY NATURALLY MEET IN THE MIDDLE

Thats how how the double slit experiment is setup, moron, read the paper.

BTW your treatment of the single-slit is wrong. For the single-slit the source is always aimed at the middle of the slit.

[Anonymous No.10202902]

>>10202856
>Real double slit would have maximum in the middle regardless of those distance because waves would have the same phase anyway

prove it.

[Anonymous No.10202915]

>>10202857
>Let me ask you this, how does the born rule fit into your picture? Cause if you can't introduce it then this is a nonstarter, there has to be something distinguishing experiments in which whether or not you have information about which slit the particle passes through affects the result.

Im not even using real electrons and a metal grate. I'm using inert balls willing inert walls. I'm sure if I used charged particles, and had something interact with the charged particles then interact with a slit made of conductors I'd get much more complex and counterintuitive results

[Anonymous No.10202941]

>>10202915
Not an argument, it also works with neutrons

[Anonymous No.10202953]

>>10202902
Look
>>10202650
or in Feyman's lectures. Single slit always has maximum at straight angle from the slit.

[Anonymous No.10202961]

>>10202897
No it isn't 30.5 isn't as close to 24, and you can use different setups anyway. Nothing stops you from using 30 and 10 or similar.
>BTW your treatment of the single-slit is wrong. For the single-slit the source is always aimed at the middle of the slit.
No
>>10202650
They are just sliding the mask.

[Anonymous No.10202965]

>>10202388
then you have a single circular distribution of detections around the area of the uncovered slit on the screen. this would be true for both classical and quantum cases

[Anonymous No.10202972]

>>10202965
Only if the particle stream is perfectly parallel. Otherwise >>10202554 happens

[Anonymous No.10202980]

>>10202961

now that I've looked at the single-slit cases. Why do they have interference patterns similar to the double slit case?

[Anonymous No.10202983]

>source distance isn't 6 orders of magnitude larger than the slit width/thickness/spacing

I see you haven't changed your ways.

[Anonymous No.10202985]

>>10202961
So where do you point the source for a single slit?

[Anonymous No.10202995]

>>10202983
>>source distance isn't 6 orders of magnitude larger than the slit width/thickness/spacing

like I've said a billion times before. It's irrelevant. Why don't you prove otherwise? I changed the parameters until the slit length was equal to the particle diameter. Nothing changed . What are you basing your argument on?

[Anonymous No.10202998]

>>10202980
It's only similar because the black bars (minima) are poorly visible due to distance between maxima being too small. You can still see a single slit case doesn't have anal bead pattern and is continuous
>>10202985
You have 2 slits with source point at the middle. Now you don't do anything to the gun but just cover one of the slits and that's it

[Anonymous No.10203001]

>>10202998
>anal bead pattern
Is that the technical term?

[Anonymous No.10203004]

>>10203001
I hope it becomes one

[Anonymous No.10203005]

>>10202995
I already proved it in the last thread.

When the source distance is 6 orders of magnitude larger than the slit scales, only about one in a million classical particles that go through the slit will be deflected. It's simple trigonometry. Find the range of angles that make it in the entrance, and find the range of angles that make it through without touching the inside of the slit ever.

[Anonymous No.10203007]

>>10203001
It is now

[Anonymous No.10203010]

>>10202998
>It's only similar because the black bars (minima) are poorly visible due to distance between maxima being too small. You can still see a single slit case doesn't have anal bead pattern and is continuous

My concern it's the absence black bars in the double slit case, which i do see. It's the presence of black bars of the same period in the single slit case. Isn't this contrary to theory?

[Anonymous No.10203011]

>>10202972
why? because the particles bounce off the slit? then there would be a annulus which i neglected for brevity.

[Anonymous No.10203015]

>>10203005

you didn't prove shit nigger. You made the slit length and ball radius zero. Of course it all falls apart in that case.

[Anonymous No.10203025]

>>10203011
Well, but that's kinda the point of this thread

[Anonymous No.10203036]

>>10203025
ok heres a racist cartoon which is also the solution

[Anonymous No.10203042]

>>10202263
>This triggers the pop/sci/

[Anonymous No.10203060]

>>10203015
No, I said that of the particles that get through, the fraction that reflect at all goes roughly as slit thickness divided by source distance. You just never responded to that point because it proves you wrong.

[Anonymous No.10203078]

>>10203010
They aren't here at pictures with P1 or P2. It's probably from the other slit being covered only partially by the mask so there is still some interference as the mask isn't at point blank from distance from the slits.

[Anonymous No.10203086]

Nice troll OP, but seriously you haven't disproved jack shit.
First of all, the double slit experiment has always been presented as a thought experiment to illustrate how weird QM is and "wave-like" properties of matter, but having a classical alternative explanation (which you don't have) doesn't explain jack shit about all the other experimental evidence for QM. How on earth do you explain the stern-gerlach experiment, photoelectric effect, the selection rules of hydrogen, Bragg's law, radiation, the whole standard model etc. If you have an alternative explanation for a single Quantum mechanical effect, that doesn't gives you a full working model like QM.
Secondly, obviously you can get that sort of distribution by collision you absolute brainlet, why people are asking you to plug in the actual parameters from an experiment and compare you result is to see if IT FITS EXPERIMENTAL DATA. If you have something that looks like an interference pattern, well that's great, but you need to compare it to the experimental data gathered from the articles already presented to you. Obviously a distribution of initial angles will give you at the end a distribution of final trajectories, this is what classical scattering is all about, but the point here is in that in these experiments they collimate the beam to avoid that noise, and actually get a direct comparison with theoretical models.

[Anonymous No.10203106]

>>10203086
>you need to compare it to the experimental data gathered from the articles already presented to you.

I looked at the experimental data provided. I'm still asking how there is an interference pattern from a single slit. The data isn't consistent with theory at all.

[Anonymous No.10203110]

>>10203106
you don't even know what the theory says

[Anonymous No.10203115]

>>10203106
What? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2346.pdf here is the treatement for single slit and double slit diffraction.

[Anonymous No.10203118]

>>10203106
Have you seriously never seen a single slit diffraction pattern before?

[Anonymous No.10203130]

>>10203118
>Have you seriously never seen a single slit diffraction pattern before?

I've seen the theoretical pattern for a single slit. It's supposed to have peaks less frequently than the double slit case . In the data provided the single slit patterns have peaks at the same period as the double slit patterns.

[Anonymous No.10203137]

>>10203115

I'm not talking about the treatment. I'm talking about the data here

>>10202650
The single slits have double slit patterns.

[Anonymous No.10203145]

>>10203137
>The single slits have double slit patterns.
They don't, the parts where they do have patterns like that are only because the mask is some distance away from the slits so there is partial interference from the covered slit. Look at P1 and P2.

[Anonymous No.10203149]

>>10203137
>>10203137
Are you literally blind? P1 and P2 are the results of only one slit and it's literally what you are saying. P12 is the only one that has a double slit pattern.

[Anonymous No.10203154]

>>10203145
>They don't, the parts where they do have patterns like that are only because the mask is some distance away from the slits so there is partial interference from the covered slit. Look at P1 and P2.

you say they don't but then explain why they actually do.

[Anonymous No.10203160]

>>10203154
Well the parts where the cover actually works don't (most bright parts). But the very dim parts have black bars.

[Anonymous No.10203161]

>>10203154
The screen only partially obscures one of the slits. It's why there's a left-right asymmetry in P1 and P2. This isn't difficult.

[Anonymous No.10203162]

>>10203154
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2346.pdf then read this article explainng the theoretical model behind it showing the differences you retard.

[Anonymous No.10203164]

>>10203149

what about the one above P2 that looks just like P12? In this case the single and double look almost identical.

P1, P2, P12 all have black bands of the same period too, that are very pronounced in some regions.

[Anonymous No.10203172]

>>10203162
>e explainng the theoretical model behind it showing the differences you retard.

why don't you learn to read, retard. Im not talking about theory. Im talking about the results and how black double slit interference bands are in the single slit cases here.

>>10202650

[Anonymous No.10203174]

>>10203164
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018/data If you cared to read the article, the images are a progressive film showing as the mask changes from blocking both to blocking one to no blocking any slit then back to blocking on and then blocking both. There's a movie in the suplementary data showing this. I.e, it's transitioning from double to single in that series of photos you retard.

[Anonymous No.10203176]

You do realize, OP, you could just run your simulation using the parameters we've repeatedly given you and settle all of this?

[Anonymous No.10203183]

>>10203174
>There's a movie in the suplementary data showing this. I.e, it's transitioning from double to single in that series of photos you retard

so none of these actually show a single-slit pattern? Whats the point of the mask then?

[Anonymous No.10203194]

>>10203172
First of all, a qualitative picture is just an illustration you fart huffing, pop sci lovin retard. Go check the supplementary data to see the actual fits. Secondly, you are literally blind and you don't understand that some pictures are there to show the transition between single to double to single again, and it's explicitly stated in the article
>>10203183
So you just refuse to see P1 and P2?

[Anonymous No.10203195]

>>10203183
When the right slit is partially obscured, look at the right side of the image.

When the left slit is partially obscured, look at the left side of the image.

Wow so hard.

[Anonymous No.10203203]

>>10203194
>So you just refuse to see P1 and P2?

I do see P1 and P2 and I see periodic black bands like P12. Are you blind?

[Anonymous No.10203208]

>>10203203
See
>>10203195

[Anonymous No.10203211]

>>10203195

why? This makes no sense theoretically. Why make and implement a mask if you don't even expect to actually block a slit and get a single slit pattern?

[Anonymous No.10203215]

>>10203208

Ok, but why?

[Anonymous No.10203217]

>>10203203
Yes AT THE ENDS OF A HIGHLY CENTERED MAXIMUM, i.e a fucking single slit diffraction pattern.

[Anonymous No.10203221]

>>10203211
When the screen is partially obscuring the left side, only the right side affects the left side of the image. That means the left side is.... wait for it... a single slit pattern.

[Anonymous No.10203225]

>>10203203
And yes, after it starts to open both slips the periodic black bands are going to start to appear inside the maximum center strip, because the single slit diffraction envelopes the double slit diffraction intensity profile.

[Anonymous No.10203226]

>>10203221
*only the right slit

[Anonymous No.10203237]

>>10203221
>When the screen is partially obscuring the left side

I don't see that it's partially obscuring. The graphics lead me to believe it's completely obscured.

[Anonymous No.10203241]

>>10203237
You are seeing a fucking picture you twat. Read the article jesus christ http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018/pdf

[Anonymous No.10203243]

>>10203217

I don't see this in any of the data provided. I see double-slit interference in all of them

[Anonymous No.10203250]

>>10203243
Well okey then, it's real in you mind which is all that it matters. You are one giant faggot my dude.

[Anonymous No.10203254]

>>10203237
The graphics is a 2D projection of a 3D experiment, I hope you realize. There's space between the mask and slits. So obviously there's some exit angles from the partially obscured slit where the electrons can go around the mask, even ignoring diffraction around the corner of the mask.

[Anonymous No.10203262]

>>10203243
You see a double slit pattern on the right side of P1? And the left side of P2?

Or are you just forgetting points that were already made?

[Anonymous No.10203269]

Just stop posting, OP just ignores the arguments that disprove his claims and refuses to make his model realistic. He's too delusional to admit he's wrong. There is no point in giving him attention.

[Anonymous No.10203301]

>>10203237
>>10203254
What’s also probably happening is that the edge of the mask sits very close to the revealed slit, so it causes a one-sided deflection that produces a double-slit-like pattern only on one side of the detector.

[Anonymous No.10203335]

>>10202263
Does your sim take into account the interaction with corners?
Even with an infinitely thin wall and a source infinitely far away, you should still see scattering and multiple bounces between the walls.
>>10202554
That is too simplified.

[Anonymous No.10203359]

>>10203335
The size of electrons is more than ten orders of magnitude smaller than the slit sizes. For realistic dimensions, htting the corner is practically impossible.

[Anonymous No.10203655]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10203709]

>>10202263
Considering the last 300 post thread, the stubborn reluctance of OP to understand or even adress any of the counter-arguments and the mindless self-righteousness of the entire thing i'd recommend anyone to stay away from this schizo OP and his ego-driven delusions.

[Anonymous No.10203732]

>>10203709
This

[Anonymous No.10203834]

>>10203732
>>10203709

ok, smarty pants. Ive been reading more into the source given for the experimental data presented here.

The title of the paper and experiment is "Controlled double-slit electron diffraction".

Ok, so the electrons are diffracting. I think I understand diffraction, but lets refresh.

"While diffraction occurs whenever propagating waves encounter such changes, its effects are generally most pronounced for waves whose wavelength is roughly comparable to the dimensions of the diffracting object or slit."- wiki

that's what I thought. now lets look at the experimental setup again.

"An electron beam with energy of 600 eV, which corresponds to a de Broglie wavelength of 50 pm"

"The double-slit consists of two 62-nm-wide slits "

the matter wave is 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the diffraction grating.

explain.

[Anonymous No.10203884]

>>10203834
What is this, proof by wikipedia? When it says "generally most pronounced" it means it's a rule of thumb that's not a substitute for actual calculation.

If you'd read the supplement to the paper, you'd see where they compare to a path integral calculation.

[Anonymous No.10203921]

>>10203884

this doesn't really answer my question. how do you call this diffraction when the diffraction grating is 1000 times larger than the wavelength?

also its not comparable to the OP since there is an electrical interaction between the wall and the electron. this is discussed in the supplement

[Anonymous No.10203942]

>>10203921
>how do you call this diffraction when the diffraction grating is 1000 times larger than the wavelength?
Because they did the same interference calculation that goes into diffraction patterns. I don't know what you expect.

>also its not comparable to the OP since there is an electrical interaction between the wall and the electron. this is discussed in the supplement
Yes, obviously there's electrical interactions. Otherwise the grating wouldn't block the electron.

[Anonymous No.10203954]

>>10203942
>I don't know what you expect.

real diffraction? I'm skeptical this is a relevant phenomena in this context. My guess the results are dominated by electromagnetic interaction between the wall and electron or even other particles in the chamber. I'd believe the patterns are as much a function of the cycles of the vacuum pumps with these dimensions.

[Anonymous No.10203959]

>>10203954
>My guess the results are dominated by electromagnetic interaction between the wall and electron or even other particles in the chamber.
Newsflash: electromagnetic interactions with the surface of the grating are why light has diffraction patterns. You act like it's a different phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.10203963]

>>10203959
>Newsflash: electromagnetic interactions with the surface of the grating are why light has diffraction patterns. You act like it's a different phenomenon.

newsflash: the topic is matter wave diffraction.
this paper was presented to me to be comparable to the op. Its not.

[Anonymous No.10203966]

>>10202263

Based fuck qf

[Anonymous No.10203969]

>>10203963
>newsflash: the topic is matter wave diffraction.
My point was: of course interaction is responsible for diffraction patterns. Light was meant to be an example that would be noncontroversial.

If there was no interactions, the electrons wouldn't be blocked by the grating.

> this paper was presented to me to be comparable to the op. Its not.
You only say that because you don't understand the physics that goes into diffraction.

[Anonymous No.10203980]

>>10203969
>You only say that because you don't understand the physics that goes into diffraction

Lol. I've a master's of science. My specialization was nanomaterials. My day job is finding solutions to Maxwell's equations. I did research for years at the University in QM. Who the fuck are you?

[Anonymous No.10203990]

>>10203980
I have a PhD in physics, with LHC BSM Higgs phenomenology as my dissertation subject.

If you know anything about Maxwell's equations, then it shouldn't surprise you that interactions are important diffraction. And yet it seems to surprise you.

[Anonymous No.10203993]

>>10203990
*important to diffraction

[Anonymous No.10203994]

>>10203990
>I have a PhD in physics

University of California nigger. Square up.

[Anonymous No.10204002]

>>10203994
Like I'm gonna reveal something that would lead to my identity to compare dick size. You didn't address the point that "interactions" don't make the problem different from diffraction.

[Anonymous No.10204004]

>>10203980
>Lol. I've a master's of science
Any retard has that

[Anonymous No.10204007]

>>10204002
>Like I'm gonna reveal something that would lead to my identity to compare dick size. You didn't address the point that "interactions" don't make the problem different from diffraction.

I'll assume cracker jack box pH.d. I wouldn't offer you a job in my lab. You are clearly very confused

[Anonymous No.10204014]

>>10204007
lol, I worked at a national lab with a top expert in my field, if you really want to turn this into a dick measuring contest, but that's not what decides who's right, and you know that

Any treatment of diffraction needs to have something other than free propagation. For diffraction with light, boundary conditions are a cheapo way to model the interactions of light with the grating. The microphysics is electromagnetic interactions, of course.

[Anonymous No.10205097]

>>10204014
>I worked at a national lab with a top expert in my field, if you

Nigga, I HAVE a lab.

[Anonymous No.10205398]

>>10205097
You continue not to address the actual points.

[Anonymous No.10205414]

>>10205097

[Anonymous No.10205442]

OP you are so wise and smart and your IQ is very high you should read "The Bell Curve"and go tell reddit about your findings I bet the girls will all finally like you once your famous for beating physicists at their own game it's really all gonna come together for you just keep posting the same thread on /sci/

[Anonymous No.10205504]

>>10205442
He should also watch rick and morty

[Anonymous No.10205718]

>>10205442
Appeal to authority cucks are the worst shitposters.

[El Arcón No.10205773]

How do you get a set of forbidden regions in the classical experiment? If you do this experiment, I think the balls will sometimes follow the red arrows. In the quantum experiment, there are forbidden regions where photons (particles) never show up (very rarely) but the ball going through the classical slit is most likely, not least likely, to go straightishly through the slit.

[Anonymous No.10205920]

>>10205773

you are correct. Some will go there. but very few. the simulation results are attached

[Anonymous No.10205922]

>>10205920

Wrong pic.

[Anonymous No.10205938]

>>10202767
>Results only changed slightly.
so they're WRONG, FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.10205941]

>>10205097
just because you have a lab doesnt mean you have more authority than someone in a particular field. case in point many PIs at northwestern and other institutions will steal from their phd students, and postdocs steal from anyone they can. i doubt you've made a substantial contribution to the field despite being a professor. case in point the many charlatans at fine institutions who publish in great journals like nature, on bacteria taking up arsenic, lymphocyte expansion molecule, an alien probe, etc etc. truth be told you were probably someone who flew under the reader until they had their chance at pouncing on something and then could fall rank and file in the scientific status quo in their field and only challenge the infirm researchers who had ideas noone really liked anyway.

>crackerjack phd
ive been at many institutions and had my own lab myself, and in the gamut of students and people, sure there are clever people at the ivies but that doesn't mean they are original or inspired and exude insight. your focus on this suggests you are one of the status quo rank and filers without conscientiousness and insight, if you are even a PI which at this point I have convinced myself you are not

[Anonymous No.10205962]

>>10205941
>if you are even a PI which at this point I have convinced myself you are not

i have a corporate lab in a company of 40,000 employees. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.10205965]

>>10205962
>corporate lab
this is the domain albeit some talented masters and phd level individuals, but in the corporate world you are less likely to innovate and more likely to have to fit within a culture.

[Anonymous No.10205966]

>>10205922
so you will post simulation results for local wannabe crackpot namefags but you wont simulate actual experiments. Yikes

[Anonymous No.10205968]

>>10204014
there you go, the beast is revealed >>10205962

. carry on, and dont feel intimidated nto dick measuring again

[Anonymous No.10205988]

>162 posts
>33 posters
sasuga crackpot toymaker

[Anonymous No.10206000]

>>10202366
We're not in the 1900s, you ass. QED and QM are so much more than Double-slit.

Try to explain tunneling classically.