Examining the Slit Experiment

[IDMclean]

Note: I abridged the above. What do you mean by a "theorem of mass, matter and energy?" I ask, because as far as I know, mass, and energy are very well defined in standard theory. What is not known is WHY certain particles have certain masses.

 

However, once experimentally measured, mass is a very well defined property, as is energy.

-Will

 

Well, I mean just that. Theorem of Mass-energy, and matter.

 

There is a theory of relativity which lays out in certain terms the priniciples of relativity and it's effects. Which explains in rather good detail the phenomena that arrise from it's emperical existence.

 

Surely mass and energy are decently defined in physics, however their definition is still far from comprehensive.

 

You can search the physics books all you like and what you will find for mass-energy and matter are models, not theorems. As I have posted previously on this forum is the neglegence in defining and questioning the fundamentals like mass, distance, time, and charge will ultimately lead scientist astray.

 

The main one is mass and matter. Yes, matter has a property that we call mass, and yes it can be measured, but what is it exactly? the fact that matter has this property is what can be called a law. The explination for why it has this property is what can be called a theory.

 

In this way, there is no theorem of mass-energy or matter. It is taken for granted and needs to be examined. I know with reasonable certainty that what we think mass and matter is, is most likely not what it really is.

[CraigD]

My reasoning for remaining skeptical arrises from the simple fact that these interpertations, by even the most knowledgable, come about without a real scientific basis.

I must disagree that it is a “fact” that none of the interpretations provided in this thread, or, I gather KAC means, in the whole of physics literature, have a “real scientific basis”. If none of what most people have for centuries called “science” qualifies as “having a real scientific basis”, this meaning of “real scientific basis” seems so far from the usual one that it’s not useful.

 

One of the characteristics of science is its ability to make and test predictions in the absence of a complete understanding of underlying causes. Kepler's laws of planetary motion provided very good predictions of the motion of orbiting bodies 80 years before a good, but still incomplete, explanation was provided by Newton’s law of universal gravitation. Lavoisier’s caloric theory, even though absolutely incorrect, provided an explanation of heat that allowed many scientists and engineers to successfully predict, test, and build useful technologies based of phenomena involving heat.

 

IMHO, scientific theories must always be viewed as provisional. They are constantly in need of improvement. However, this need does not negate their theoretical predictions.

 

For example, AFAIK, gravity has not been successfully included in a theory of particle physics that successfully predicts the observed behavior of phenomena on the [math]10^{-18}[/math] m scale. This does not mean that the motion of the planets as explained by Kepler’s laws, or the interaction of photons and atoms explained by the standard model, have no scientific basis, or that the terms such theories define – distance, mass, energy, etc. - are ill defined.

 

PS: A note on diction: The term “theorem” does not mean “explanation”, as the term ”scientific theory” does, but means “a proven proposition”. It’s ordinarily used only in formal mathematical language. It certainly does not mean to most people who recognize it “a really good/perfect theory”.

 

I believe the sentence

There is no theorem of mass, no theorem of matter, no theorem of energy

should have been written:

“there is no theory of mass, no theory of matter, no theory of energy”,

or

“there is no explanation of mass, no explanation of matter, no explanation of energy”.

[Erasmus00]

Well, I mean just that. Theorem of Mass-energy, and matter.

 

As Craig mentioned, you most probably mean theory or explanation.

 

Surely mass and energy are decently defined in physics, however their definition is still far from comprehensive.

 

You can search the physics books all you like and what you will find for mass-energy and matter are models, not theorems. As I have posted previously on this forum is the neglegence in defining and questioning the fundamentals like mass, distance, time, and charge will ultimately lead scientist astray.

 

Of course this is questioned, and all the time! Relativity was about rigorously defining what we mean by time and space. Other theories (such as QED) have attempted to elaborate what we mean by charge and mass.

 

The main one is mass and matter. Yes, matter has a property that we call mass, and yes it can be measured, but what is it exactly? the fact that matter has this property is what can be called a law. The explination for why it has this property is what can be called a theory.

 

First, this is an oversimplification, not everything has mass. Photons and gluons, for instance, do not. Of the force carrying bosons, only the W and Zs have mass.

 

Second, the standard model does have a theory of mass based on the higgs/Anderson mechanism.

-Will

[IDMclean]

I must disagree that it is a “fact” that none of the interpretations provided in this thread, or, I gather KAC means, in the whole of physics literature, have a “real scientific basis”. If none of what most people have for centuries called “science” qualifies as “having a real scientific basis”, this meaning of “real scientific basis” seems so far from the usual one that it’s not useful.

 

I would warn, in a friendly tone :D, not to take what I have said outside of context. I only mean the interperation that the electron/photon/etc has passed through both of the slits and that it is "obvious" that this is the case. Now there are parts of the experiment, infact large parts of the experiment, that I will accept have a real scientific basis.

 

It is the conclusion that I have the issue with. The line of reasoning to me leads to a much different picture than what is given by the vast majority. Similar in vein as the interpertations of the CMB, and the Spiral Galaxy problem. True, a possible interpertation is that the CMB indicates a very large bang. However that is only one of the interpertations and given the parameters of that particular interpertation it would be one of the last on my list, next to "and god said let their be light".

 

the standard model does have a theory of mass based on the higgs/Anderson mechanism.

 

I fail to see, upon reading some literature about it, how this mechanism, by itself, amounts to a comprehensive theory of matter.

 

Of the force carrying bosons, only the W and Zs have mass.

This says very little considering that I don't even begin to fathom what you mean by mass. Surely they have been measured to possess the property of energy, that I can read for myself. Surely they have been measured to have a relative mass value, once again something I can read for myself. Even photons have a mass value, if only relatively.

 

Now I will point out further that you, Erasumus00, are the one whom has interjected that "not everything has mass" which is immaterial to my point of contention. Get it, immaterial?

 

My point here is that the entire experiment is material, irregardless of whether this or that thing has a rest mass property value. Being that the barrier, projectile, coverings, detector and source are all material there are effects, which I can fathom, that would be non-trivial in the interpertation of the outcome of this experiment.

 

It is in the ignorance of the very question of, what is matter? that I come to question the scientific validity of the interperation of this experiment, and by which I come to reject the very notion that the electron/photon/etc even went through one or both of the slits. I my view there is no reason why it has to, or even why the one projectile must remain the one and only projectile in the whole of the experiment.

 

The mechanism by which the projectile shot is not the projectile caught, or by which the projectile might find another path to it's target is a discussion for another thread. However, it is entirely possible, plausible even, that the projectile that is shot, is not the one caught. Likewise is it plausible that the barrier itself that may result in the pattern seen. How is it that we are to be sure that it is not the barrier, or the detector, or the box that the experiment is contained within, or the world upon which the experiment takes place does not interfer with the projectile?

 

Many of you see material as one whole piece, unmoving. I see material as aggregates and individuals constantly flowing, and exchanging places in between the ticks of the clock. The worst part about is that there is no experiment that could be done, as admitted by classical and quantum physics, to discearn between our original projectile and the projectile that is detected at the end.

 

So, ladies and gentlemen it is by the sleight of hand that I believe we get our seemingly miraclous results. Watch closely and you can see the swap.

[Erasmus00]

I fail to see, upon reading some literature about it, how this mechanism, by itself, amounts to a comprehensive theory of matter.

 

I would argue that quantum field theory/standard model IS the comprehensive theory of matter and the higgs/anderson mechanism is the part of the theory that deals with mass.

 

This says very little considering that I don't even begin to fathom what you mean by mass.

 

I mean mass in the very rigorous sense defined by any reasonable field theory.

 

It is in the ignorance of the very question of, what is matter?

 

I believe quantum field theories have a very rigorous deffinition of what we mean by matter- excitations of a background field.

 

I my view there is no reason why it has to, or even why the one projectile must remain the one and only projectile in the whole of the experiment.

 

There is no reason that we need assume that only one projectile is in the apparatus. In fact, we can to very good accuracy compute the effects of production of photons. We can show that this effect is negligble compared to the first order effect (photon travels through the slits).

 

How is it that we are to be sure that it is not the barrier, or the detector, or the box that the experiment is contained within, or the world upon which the experiment takes place does not interfer with the projectile?

 

Of course it does! The question is, can we show that this interference is small compared to the main effect, which we can also do.

-Will

[IDMclean]

Will, much of what you have posted here is secondary or immaterial to the topic, and what appears to be round n of our verbal spats about how little the other knows about this or that minute topic that is increasingly tangent to the topic that was being discussed previously.

[Drum]

Love to hear you describe the delayed choice experiment Drum.

 

SilverSlith ...... Will try to condense it so that it will fit in a Post. give me a little while. perhaps I will start a new thread ..... bit smartass seeing as this is only my third post

 

CraigD .... You obviously know your s*** ... enjoy your posts

 

KickAss ... This is a simple example .... Your TV screen is the target ... The gun is the cathode-ray-gun in the rear of your tube ... This gun fires electrons under orders from the TV producer. If each electron didn't go EXACTLY where he tells it to, it would hit some other part of the screen. Your picture would appear as Garbage. As you read these words, even on an LCD monitor, electrons are striking your screen and delivering photons to your eyes ...

 

 

 

drum:)

[IDMclean]

I do understand the mechanics behind these things, I really do. What I have here is not a misunderstanding, but a disagreement. For you Drum, I would suggest you taking a look at the posts that I have made in the near past, particularly regarding the nature of photons, and matter. You can do that by clicking on my name next to my post and clicking the option "Find More Posts by KickAssClown".

 

Now to the simple reason why I should believe that the projectile went through the slits, as given by Boer. That if you cover the slits no pattern shows up on the otherside. It is not sufficient, in my view, to prove that the projectile went through the slits just because the coverings have an effect on the outcome of the experiment. Once again the reason comes from the structure of the experiment itself, and the structure of the coverings themselves.

 

I would acknowledge that the projectile get's detoured by the coverings, they create a new path of resistence and force the projectile to follow a path of least resistance. No interferance pattern on the otherside, because the projectile doesn't make it to the otherside.

 

That still does not prove that the projectile went through both, let alone one of the slits. As I said intially, there are other explanations for the outcome of the experiment. Just as there are other explanations for the CMB, and the Spiral Galaxy problem.

[arkain101]

Possibly I could add to this with a bit of a philisophical insight.

 

In past deep contemplation I have been forming a relative perspective theory. Some details are as follows.

 

Every thing (such as an object) that we know and that makes sense to us is not an actual object. On the contrary everything that we know of that exists is a mental construct. It may have mass, it may have energy, but there is no such thing as an actual particle or wave other than in the concept of the mind, which of course, is not part of physics. Yet, this is what physics has long been studying, the mental constructs we call our world.

 

As for the objects or 'things' that truly exist outside of a mental construct, such as the near core quantum wave functions, they are on the contrary, non-things relative to what our mental construct refers to what a thing is.

 

Therefore, each realm or reality if you will, them being, the mental macro interpratatoin and the micro quantum measuremental, are non-existent relative to each other.

 

That is, to our mind, the quantum wave functions are non particle and not wave, yet either, or both.

 

To the quantum wave functions, our macro world is unrelavent, non-required or existent.

 

Therefore, when we apply this to such things as what is a particle? or what is matter, mass, energy or any of those things, we find that anything we know is a mentally constructed thing.

 

But here is the duality of this situation. Even though this hypothesis is theoretically correct and legal, it is the very things that we turn to and reflect upon as to what is real, and what is observable.

 

For example the moon circles the earth. Yes, surely it does we can observe this mentally.

 

But the moon is not a thing, nor does it contain a particle. The moon as all material things are is a series of observable and measureable levels of confident reality. Patterns if you will pieced together to form reason out of.

 

We have levels of such like; Moon body, moon dust, moon atoms, moon electrons, moon gravity, moon mass, etc.

 

Though non of this is physically true relative to the quantum matter perspective. Rather the moon is a density of time and thus, a concentration of mass-energy. Apply much more than this description would be to apply the now so called rediculous idea that the moon is actually made of something.

 

So where does this rabbit hole lead? It takes you deep into no mans land. Precisely where science has found itself. Full of grand and fantastic, imaginative ideas and theories of strings and endless dimensions of foundationless reason. So this rabbit hole which I bring forth infact leads you to a mirror. This is the as if the mobius loop of your mind meeting matter. This being a 1/2 twisted strip with 1 side required to make two trips around to make a full rotatoin. You may put mind on one side of the strip and matter on the other side, but you will find that as you move along the strip, they are on the same side. Mind stuff and matter stuff being intwined if you will.

 

The rabbit hole tells you, you've met your maker, something entirely non-existent relative to existing 'things'.

 

Thus you must bounce back to the macro world and conclude, that self, your own aware self of being, is the deepest and most fundamental aspect of reality.

 

Einstien has a famous quote I am sure many of us are familiar with, that goes along the lines of;

 

"I want to know how god thinks, the rest...they're just details."

 

I presume to explain, that in the context of his statement, he answered his question without realising it. How god thinks if you will (understanding how this all works), is the macroscopic world you see before you, the oneness of all stages and levels of understanding.

 

Neither macro or micro are material, nor mind or awareness, the entire thing is an enigma.

 

Which is why I think many of us naturally cling to a god or spiritual handle of support.

 

Because the macro world is the only world for us to wisely call the place of focus and understanding however facinating and useful it is to understand internal mechanisms.

 

So, it would be wise to be questionable of the so called written in stone conclusions science beleives it has made throughout its history in order to have science leap forward with guidence and understanding in its future persuit.

[arkain101]

Just to make doubley sure that it is clear for the purpose of my above post I will make an addition.

 

The post was aimed at supporting Kickassclowns motive to his beef related to this experiment and science in general.

 

Also, I intened to try and merge the readers differing persective to his perspective to some degree in order to get everyone looking in the same direction.

 

This is because, like two people looking at an image of a man with a brief case running away from a rugged and criminal looking man who is chasing him.

 

One might say, look he is being mugged, while the other will say no look, there is a thing falling from that tall building next to them, the rugged man chasing the man with the breif case is trying to save him by getting him out of the way.

 

I sensed there was a situation like this where the readers are viewing one scenario perspective, while clown is trying to merge the readers into his and metaphorically point to the thing falling down in order that you can grasp why he is proposing and speculating what he is.

[Drum]

Akrain ..... OK .. I am with you (I think)

 

Its possible that I mis-intrepreted KickAss's idea. Mind you, I do not really understand yours.... But I do understand your drift ... That is .. your analogies do not ring a bell with me, but the point your trying to make with them does.

 

I suppose this is even more confusing now.

 

I will try to think of an analogy that links to your main idea ... give me a little while ?

 

Drum

[Drum]

Arkain101 ... Just give me a little hint here ...

 

Is your (and possibly KickAss) idea more related to the MetaPhysical as opposed to Strictly Scientific explanations ?

[arkain101]

No, its entirely scientific, but there is mystery meeting mechanistic now in science.

 

In a blunt way, I am pointing out, that kickassclown's beef is a righteous beef.

 

I believe this is so, because entry level science teaches you a view of the world that is purely is mechanistic (mechanical like).

 

Although the equations show there is laws that uphold, this does not exclude other avenues.

 

For example.

 

There is laws of newtonian truth.

 

There is laws of Einsteinian truth.

 

There is laws of quantum field truth.

 

My most important point is that, with the mind removed, there is theoretically only one level of truth, and it must be somewhere in the reaches of the core basics of reality, which I propose is in the quantum realm.

 

All other sciences work with compound interactions, our mind combines a series of individual yet similar events (singular frames) and paints a concept on them.

 

Such as a basket ball is orange, and round, and pretty well holding still. The model of the atoms in the ball is absolutely nothing like the model of the atom in a text book and infact it isnt even a comprehensible model. Atoms are like temporary states. An electron changes orbits but it doesnt move from orbit to orbit the cloud so to speak becomes orbit to orbit, no space, it just instantly becomes a new state, which is wave-like, and particle like, but also neither, or both.

 

So, I am daring to say you can not exclude the mind from physics, since up to this date all physics has yet studied is patterns the mind puts together.

 

You can't exclude mind from physics. I am not suggesting metaphysical, I am saying, think outside of sciences current box, for the very reasons I explained, science's box is and has been the study of the mind.

 

The fact light is the same speed to each individual observer, regardless of the speed either is going, is a powerful suggestion that, the mind is intwined with your reality and your physics. That is, your universe is unique and seperate to mine, for as long as special relativity stands up to its postulates.

 

For a simple example. If you can observe from space my clock to run slower than yours, while my clock runs the same as usual and physics laws uphold, then our universes are not in direct connection, they include mental aspects along side physical aspects. It comes down to relativeness, and a duality between matter and mind.

 

So, when I read kickassclown, saying, how should I be limited to the suggestions of possibilites that science is currently able to give, and why should I not investigate out of this box? Then I think as we re-read his thread, we can get his inquiry.

 

It's because he and I have dicussed our comman view on science and its range from outside of the box that this followup, and sort of introduction is I think required to begin grasping the scientificly catagorized methods being discussed.

[arkain101]

In order to support my posts to some degree and show I am not chasing the wind here, I want to show that there is a simularity between the double slit experiment results and what I have put forth as a suggestive perspective of thought.

 

In the slit experiment, the reasoning is, photons (or electrons etc) can go through one slit and act particle like or the other slit and the same. It can go through both and interfear withitself like a wave.

 

The key word here is like.

 

One slit creates a single band, like a particle can and like a wave can. Two slits creates a interference pattern, like a wave might. Trying to measure with a signal before the slits can break down the the wave function and cause it to create two bands like two streams of particles or like two waves that are no longer interfear with eachother.

 

As for simularity between that, and the framework of reality having mental constructs and physical properties;

 

As I said all objects that are known as things (physical objects), and behave in familiarity to macroscopic things we know, are mental contructs.

 

Here is the connection:

Although particles and objects are mental constructs in the mind an not things (relative to mass-energy-matter), they are also things (relative to the mind). This is, Things are also, either non physical mental constructs or actual physical things. Similar to the logic of reasoning found in the double slit experiments, objects in general are both physical and mental, or just physical and not mental, or just mental and not physical, or neither.

 

The same relative circumstance comes into play at the macro world as it does in the micro world.

 

The circumstance creates the product, relative to the context of the investigation.

 

If you exclude the observer from the experiment, you find confusing results of wave-particle duality. But, it takes an observer to then make this claim of the results.(so the observer is never actually out of the experiment).

 

If you include the observer, you can conclude all observations are mental constructs (of non-tangibility), or physical fundamental things (of non mental requirement).

 

So,

 

In my proposal; (macro)

(i)If I investigate the world with the presupposition that I am going to find an object of material form, then when I find evidence of it, I will conclude I have have some support what I am looking for.

(ii)If I investigate the world with the presupposition that I am going to find something made by my mind but is not an actual object relative to the fundamentals that form it, when I find evidence for it, I can conlude I again have support of what I am looking for.

 

What we find on the micro scale

(i)If I set up an experiment in a specific form, I will find evidence that suggest the form of what I am testing. Such as a wave like function, and can make a conclusion that the unknown I am observering has evidence of wave characteristics similar to those that I can accurately observe in the macro world.

(ii)If I set up an experiment in a specific form, I will find evidence that suggest the form of what I am testing. Such as a particle like function, and can make a conclusion that the unknown I am observering has evidence of particle like characteristics, similar to those that I can accurately observe in the macro world.

 

Now the trinity of logic, relitivity, & circumstance.

 

1)

If there is or was a fundamental so called physical object responsible for space and time, mass and energy. If it was alone (like a photon is suggested to be capble of) it would have no connection to its surroundings by any kind of information connection. Space, time, & mass could not logically or physically be added to this particular fundamentals property. If it is the source of property, then it itself is not contained by those properties, and thus it becomes unrestricted as is light. Both through characteristics, and through relativistic reasoning.

 

2)

As for a pair (parity) such as matter, There is velocity, there is space, and because of this, time is intwined as a product or replacement for velocity or energy. If there is time, there is then mass, for mass is intimitly intwined with acceleration the time of change of space.

 

In a fundamental pairity system such as a negatron-positron pair, the logic implied is that neither is dominant or responsible for any change between them. Each can assume the exact same thing the other assumes, but, only in a mirrored format.

 

3)

The third stage is Tri relativity. (triality).

In the relativistic sense, once 3 reference frames form a system (group) each of the 3 can create a certainty amongst the circumstances. If we have a,b, and c. If we observe from 'c' we say we are at rest. Then we can conclude that b and a are moving, and we can decifer infact which one is moving or changing. It could be either one, or both. (but in pairity there is no certainty of this such).

 

conclusion

So in this format, there is requirement and implication of the logic of mind and logic on matter, in order to design a theoretically logical framework to imply onto reality with the scientific data we find.

 

This does not satisfy what is matter, mass, or energy in a singular definition, but that is because even reason itself contains the same format found in the quantum weirdness of our currently understood core of reality.

[Drum]

.. Arkain101 ..

 

The key word here is like.

 

One slit creates a single band, like a particle can and like a wave can. Two slits creates a interference pattern, like a wave might. Trying to measure with a signal before the slits can break down the the wave function and cause it to create two bands like two streams of particles or like two waves that are no longer interfear with eachother.

 

As for simularity between that, and the framework of reality having mental constructs and physical properties;

 

As I said all objects that are known as things (physical objects), and behave in familiarity to macroscopic things we know, are mental contructs.

 

In my opinion, this is not quite correct.

 

One slit creates a single diffuse band, regardless of the number or timing of the particles.

Two (or more) slits create a wave pattern. The wave pattern infers the collision or interaction of many particles all in the (approx) same space and time frame.

 

These actions satisfy physical objects (things) in our macroscopic world…. Whether we interpret them scientifically or as mental constructs.

 

However, when a single object (particle) creates a wave pattern (a pattern only produced by the action of the collective or many) then this can no longer be interpreted by a 'mental construct'. This does not mean that scientifically it does not happen.

 

.. Arkain101 .. The circumstance creates the product, relative to the context of the investigation.

 

If you exclude the observer from the experiment, you find confusing results of wave-particle duality. But, it takes an observer to then make this claim of the results.(so the observer is never actually out of the experiment).

 

The only thing that is confused by the results is our mental construct. The Maths/Science is not confused.

 

With your Macro proposal I tend to loosely agree, but not so with your Micro. Sophisticated experiments have been setup and tested, many, many times to rule out any bias by 'mental constructs'. These experiments do not set out to 'find' expected results but are setup on the principal of 'Devil's Advocate'. You infer that the experimenter can never be totally dis-associated from the experiment, I disagree ... of course an experiment must take place somewhere in the universe and we are part of that universe... but this is not a position that can be debated sensibly.

 

On the 'Trinity', points one and two I do not really follow. Its possible we have different ideas on space and time. On point three I don't agree with the logic. If we decide arbitrarily that we © are at rest in the 3 reference system, why can we also not make that arbitrary decision in the 2 reference system? The 3 reference system allows no more accurate deductions than the 2 reference system. In either system all deductions are relative ??

 

Furthermore, the 'Trinity' with its three postulates seems to contradict Kickass's contention that nothing can be stated conclusively.

 

The 'logic of mind' and the 'logic on matter', where they agree we feel content. That is not to say they must. The Cosmos is not regulated to suit our ideas of rational .. we may never have explanations that suit our ideas of logic ... But what we currently have is similar to saying the Earth is round, as opposed to the Earth is flat. These may both ultimately prove incorrect descriptions of the Earth. But 'round' is not as wrong as 'flat'

 

Please understand that these are my opinions only, I have been wrong many times before ... Drum :eek_big:

[arkain101]

Nice post.

 

I should mention its a concept in progress of course. A perspective for investigation, one of many that we must always have in an investigation.

[Drum]

Arkain101 ......

 

You have given me some new ideas. Of course you are right when you point out that your idea is a concept in progress.

 

I have long been trying to formulate some method of equating 'Science' with our mental understanding. Especially as we have to accept Quantum mechanics for the moment .... the most bizarre of explanations to our logic.

 

Your idea of 'mental constructs' has much more to it than I gave credit for in my previous reply. However, it did not leave my thoughts until late into the night, and I determined as soon as possible to make amends.

 

Its still possible that I mis-intrepreted 'mental construct', but it has broken through a wall in my mind that has held me back for a long time. My favourite hobby horse has always been Evolution and your idea has at last allowed me to go some way towards uniting (or should I say including) Science within Evolution. Evolution, to my way of thinking must be able to explain the Cosmos from the beginning to the end.

 

My previous reply was too hasty, and while our ideas may not totally agree I now admit that your reply contained much more than I initially thought. I hope to post a thread summing up my ideas on all this soon.

 

kindest regards .... Drum