Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

billwadge.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#91

Post by zarmin »

missosoup wrote: post #34
headmelted wrote: post #6

This 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…

But...but...he read the right book.

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#92

Post by zarmin »

justinmchase wrote: post #82
mikhailfranco wrote: post #54

QM is easy to describe. There is wave-particle duality, but not at the same 'time' , only in a strict alternating sequence of propagations and interactions. Propagation is completely wave-like. It is unitary and time reversible, without loss of information. There is no particle there, and no 'there' there, as the propagation is non-local. Waves have complex amplitudes. Interference happens because that's what waves d…

> QM is easy to describe. That's easy for you to say!

I understand QM intuitively. I just don't wanna explain it to you is all.

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#93

Post by gus_massa »

empath75 wrote: post #8
losvedir wrote: post #3

Getting some real crackpot vibes here. How does Duane's hypothesis account for the diffraction pattern going away if the particular slit the particle goes through is measured?

If he had read the article that he linked to, he’d see that duane’s hypothesis is a special case that can be derived from quantum mechanics. I don’t believe that you can derive the rest of quantum mechanics from duane’s hypothesis.

I agree. The relevant paragraph from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane's_hypothesis

> Quantum mechanics

> According to Ballentine, Duane's proposal of quantum translational momentum transfer is no longer needed as a special hypothesis; rather, it is predicted as a theorem of quantum mechanics.[22] It is presented in terms of quantum mechanics by other present day writers also.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#94

Post by scotty79 »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #84
scotty79 wrote: post #73

Duane doesn't explain double slit experiment. It says momentum exchnge is quantized if you direct particle at lattice and this gives same pattern as interference. If you consider single electron in this interpretation, point like particle without any associated wave or ability to be in more than one point of space at the same time ... when it is directed and passes through one of the slits, it produces the pattern bu…

So, Newtonian physics is an approximation for certain wave shapes/magnitudes?

Newtonian physics is an approximation of Schrodinger equation.

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#95

Post by scotty79 »

scottlocklin wrote: post #89
scotty79 wrote: post #73

Duane doesn't explain double slit experiment. It says momentum exchnge is quantized if you direct particle at lattice and this gives same pattern as interference. If you consider single electron in this interpretation, point like particle without any associated wave or ability to be in more than one point of space at the same time ... when it is directed and passes through one of the slits, it produces the pattern bu…

If you have wave-systems with high enough fidelity (Q-factor in a cavity for example), they behave a lot like particles in certain energy/time regimes. People yelling from a mountain top hear echoes.

People have always thought about "atoms" of matter as being primary units of existance and waves being some second order, compound behavior. That's why it was so hard to get rid of the idea of ether.

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#96

Post by dang »

ryanthedev wrote: post #55
knzhou wrote: post #44

Physicist here. This is just self-congratulatory nonsense. Though I shouldn't be surprised, because I originally signed up for this site to comment against some other self-congratulatory nonsense. Quantum mechanics is built on extraordinarily simple rules, in fact simpler ones than classical mechanics: all you do is sum up the amplitudes for various paths, and square it to get a probability. The problem is that the o…

Here we go. Throwing around internet titles. You do realize he has a PHD in math. I will trust his math work over your "theories" Let's see some papers you have published?

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Whatever the substantive points on the topic are, posting like this just makes the thread considerably worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#97

Post by neonate »

For those who don't know, Bill Wadge is an esteemed computer scientist who created the Lucid dataflow language with Ed Ashcroft.

Not that that has anything to do with the double slit experiment, but it's worth knowing.

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#98

Post by [deleted] »

grumpy8 wrote: post #38
missosoup wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#99

Post by kgwgk »

dekhn wrote: post #26
fsh wrote: post #19

It 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…

+1 for the delayed choice quantum eraser as being the one experiment that makes it more or less impossible to argue against quantum weirdness.

The ‘Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser’ Neither Erases Nor Delays

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03137.pdf

Re: Double Slit Experiment No Mystery

#100

Post by kgwgk »

scottlocklin wrote: post #85

> What many don’t realize is that the double slit experiment (with particles), proposed by Feynman in 1963, was for decades only a thought experiment. Finally, in 2013, it was successfully performed with electrons. It’s easy to see why it took so long: the slits were 62 billionths of a meter apart. Who is this clown? I did the two slit experiment using a CRT (aka using electrons) in undergrad experimental physics cla…

Doing it with actual slits and standalone particles is not so easy:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...

Post reply on HN