This is intellectual arrogance on full display.
Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
31–40 of 124 posts
Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
#32Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
#33It is very common in physics that the same phenomenon can be explained using different concepts. Treating particles hitting a regular structure as diffraction of de Broglie waves gives exactly the same results as the momentum transfer approach the author prefers. In fact, both can be derived from standard quantum mechanics and both are widely used, depending on which is easier in the particular case. However, scatter…
The author is frustrated by their apparent misunderstanding of theory and history of theory that is very hard to understand, and is even not completely understood yet, and is right to be subject to new questions and outlooks.
It seems equally selfish to be offended personally or in a groups honor, by accusations of innate intellectual prejudices at large, than it is selfish for the intellectually isolated individual to entertain and express such accusations.
Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
#34This misses whole swathes of the double slit experiment. It doesn't cover the Observer problem, which means it doesn't acknowledge duality, which (you would have to assume) means it doesn't even recognise delayed-choice quantum erasers. At the risk of getting downvoted to oblivion I feel like the author needs to study up on quite a bit more of this research as there's a much larger body of evidence than that which is…
The author of TFA has little understanding of what they're talking about and misses all of the nuance of the double slit experiment and its relationship to other QM phenomena like the Dirac three polarizer experiment[1] and delayed choice quantum eraser experiment[2]. The three polariser experiment in particular makes it almost impossible to argue that light is a particle even if it had hidden state, unless that hidden state was propagating faster than light.
TFA reads like /r/iamverysmart content or a medium effort troll post. I don't understand how this ended up on HN frontpage.
[1] http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
#35This misses whole swathes of the double slit experiment. It doesn't cover the Observer problem, which means it doesn't acknowledge duality, which (you would have to assume) means it doesn't even recognise delayed-choice quantum erasers. At the risk of getting downvoted to oblivion I feel like the author needs to study up on quite a bit more of this research as there's a much larger body of evidence than that which is…
Thank you for articulating what I could not.
Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The focus on “observation” in quantum mechanics is dumb and damaging. In quantum mechanics observation means something very different from what people assume when you use the word observation. When you say “if we observe the position of the electron” people think: “we put an observer who without interring in any active way and he looked at the electron to see where it is”. What QM actually means is more akin to “if w…
Observation is what makes physics matter in the practical sense.
Is there anything about the point being made that is inconsistent with that?
Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
#37I'd recommend reading the book The Physics of God.
The author goes into a whole different theory on how it's possible for a photon to be both a wave or a particle depending on whether there is an Intelligent Observer/sensor.
Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
#38This misses whole swathes of the double slit experiment. It doesn't cover the Observer problem, which means it doesn't acknowledge duality, which (you would have to assume) means it doesn't even recognise delayed-choice quantum erasers. At the risk of getting downvoted to oblivion I feel like the author needs to study up on quite a bit more of this research as there's a much larger body of evidence than that which is…
The author of TFA has little understanding of what they're talking about and misses all of the nuance of the double slit experiment and its relationship to other QM phenomena like the Dirac three polarizer experiment[1] and delayed choice quantum eraser experiment[2]. The three polariser experiment in particular makes it almost impossible to argue that light is a particle even if it had hidden state, unless that hidd…
I didn't know about Duane's hypothesis even though I read a few books mentioning the double slit experiment so I'm glad I read the article. In the end, as much as the wave/particle duality seems mysterious at the moment, I'm convinced we'll find a quite boring/straightforward explanation for it.
Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
#39It is very common in physics that the same phenomenon can be explained using different concepts. Treating particles hitting a regular structure as diffraction of de Broglie waves gives exactly the same results as the momentum transfer approach the author prefers. In fact, both can be derived from standard quantum mechanics and both are widely used, depending on which is easier in the particular case. However, scatter…
Well I don't believe that's what he intended.
It seemed he was trying to argue about the double slit not being evidence of wave particle duality.
I tend to agree, the notion of matter being in two places at once is nonsense.
Also I agree with the author that the majority of people tend to point to the double slit as some type of proof.
Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery
#401. It’s very nice to be introduced to Landé and Duane. 2. After so much emphasis on reason and experiment and evidence, it is jarring to switch gears to a conspiracy theory about scientists concealing or ignoring theories in order to make themselves seem “superhuman.” 3. It’s very nice to be introduced to Landé and Duane.
You'd be surprised how much scientists hush and push dissenting voices which don't suite a particular theory which one cabal wants to be true. Sean Caroll has been advocating strongly in public to go back and take a look at measurement problem but nobody wants to do it. He speaks more about this on his podcast (mindscape) and also on Joe Rogans podcast ( I mean the fact that he had to bring it up in Joe Rogans podcas…
This kind of conspiratorial thinking is precisely the problem. There is a constant avalanche of papers being published on interpretations of quantum mechanics, in my mind, too many. To believe that Sean Carroll is the only person thinking about this is frankly insulting.
This is comparable to hearing one C++ developer speak, then getting the impression that they are the only programmer in the world who uses a strongly typed language, and that there's a conspiracy to cover up strong typing.