Source: ** you do not have permission to see this link **..D8TIY3N7T8 Experiment. Very convincing. Not 😷
Did you read ** you do not have permission to see this link ** that that came from?
The test strip was timed to oscillate back and forth, up and down like a figure 8 and the slits were timed to open and close to recreate a wave interference pattern.
The only thing that was moved was the mask, The manner and purpose of its movement was explained in the paper. It was movable so they could show both single-slit pattern and double-slit pattern. It did not oscillate in a figure 8. The slits were not timed to open. The double-slit diffraction pattern was observed when the mask was centered, leaving both slits fully open.
They’re not really shooting one particle:wave of light or electron at a time.
Yes they did. They explain that the electron gun was set to a frequency of 1 Hz: “At this rate and kinetic energy, the average distance between consecutive electrons was 2.3 × 10^6 m. This ensures that only one electron is present in the 1 m long system at any one time, thus eliminating electron–electron interactions.”
Porphyry, if and when you have the time, I’d love to hear more on this:
I was thinking of the classic argument from contingency, which, at root, is basically developing the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?
This will be a fun exercise for me, since I haven’t though through this really deeply since losing my faith.
1) Everything we have experience of is contingent.
By “contingent” I mean it could have been or, just as well, not have been.
2) Every contingent thing requires an explanation.
If a thing might just as well not be as be, it naturally leads to the question, ” . . . if *what* thing or things had been different.” Something (really, many things) are needed to account for why a contingent thing is. If you wish to account for a contingent thing, you have to mention those causes and conditions that explain why it is.
3) A world of only contingent beings is not possible.
We’ll attempt prove this by contradiction. Imagine a world that is made up only of contingent things that give rise to and explain other contingent things; such a world will either have a finite or infinite history of things causing, accounting for, and explaining other things. (I’m going to use the word “history” but I should clarify that not all explanatory factors are temporally antecedent to their effects: For example, the strong nuclear force is part of the explanation of why I am here, but it is also simultaneous with me–the moment it stops working, I cease to be.)
If we say that that history is finite, then we will necessarily arrive at some first contingent thing or set of things, with nothing prior. That would violate what we said in (2): Every contingent things requires an explanation. So we can never terminate our history in a contingent thing.
If we take the alternative and say that history is infinite–such that each thing is explained by prior things, which are explained by prior things, and so on ad infinitum–then for any contingent thing, our chain of explanations fails to explain, for it necessarily introduces an infinite regress of explanations and an infinite regress only arises when an explanation fails to explain. When you are just repeatedly kicking the can down the road, so to speak, you aren’t explaining anything.
4) Therefore there is at least one necessary being–a being that cannot not have been, a being that contains in itself its own explanation and that fully accounts for itself.
There is a lot to unpack in all that and I did gloss over some of the finer points, but I think a lot of atheist scientists would actually agree. No one thinks the world just popped into being from nothing. And no one is comfortable will the idea that certain most critical facts about our world are completely arbitrary with no explanation.
But it all boils down to, Why is there something rather than nothing? And granted that there is something rather than nothing, why is it this something and not some other something?
There’s nothing going on where humans have the ability to alter states of matter: mass=energy into either a particle or wave. You can’t wind your mind and willpower just miraculously change the air pressure in a tire or stop a ball joint from falling apart when driving a car down the road. Sweet talking won’t do anything to change it.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
You are right, there was a second movable part, the detection slit.
That slit was for detecting which path the the electrons took, not for creating the pattern. They used deflection plates to scan the pattern across the detection plate.
Perhaps most importantly, the movable detection plate was able to be moved out of the way, and they did the experiment without it in place, instead using the screen and a camera as a detector. Note, that this version of the experiment also produced the interference pattern.
The Electric Field is much greater around the Double Slit and Detection Slit because the things have more electrons than the laser beam. The particle is just skipping off the Electric Field and doesn’t always go the exact same direction because the electron particles don’t all have the exact same mass:energy.
The Electric Field behaves like a wave. The electric particle skips off the electric Field like a skipping stone on water. The stone and water are not the same state of matter, the particle and field are not the same state of matter.
That sounds like the pilot wave theory. But of course, in pilot wave theory (assuming that is what you are talking about), you have . . . you know . . . waves. It isn’t all particles, with wavelength no more than a mathematical representation of energy.
My belief is that the particle is only a particle. The wave is the particle inside the field, which is always since the field cannot be escaped. The particle does not become a wave. The wave can be like an adjective while the particle is a noun. The wave is a measurement of the particles energy:mass.
When the electric and magnetic field are extremely great it becomes linguistically confused as being the same thing as Gravity.
Hence, the electromagnetic Universe theories. Like the Sun up there. It has tremendous Gravity because of its mass:energy and also has tremendous electromagnetic fields because of all the light it creates.
Please no more electric Universe and Quantum consciousness ideas for me. I’m more than happy with Newton’s physics and Classical physics as being good and accurate enough.
I’ve never heard of Pilot Wave Theory before, until today.
The wave is a property of a particle. A property of is an adjective. The wave is an adjective. Adjectives are not things like nouns are. It behaves like a wave, but it is not grammatically a wave as a noun, thing. Water can be a wave too. The wave is water too.
…the eternal Principle completely Actual and metaphysically Ultimate attractive, unifying, and ordering entity (mostly indirectly) loved and desired by the entire eternal universe, an antisocial solipsistic entity, the most elitist intellectual entity entirely wrapped up in itself, thinking only of itself as the most perfect entity that ever will exist, forever…
Robert, I will not enter the general conversation, from which I have been disinvited, but I do feel the need to compliment you on your explanation. Could we say that half of the history of Western philosophy is the result of misunderstanding Aristotle, or is that cynical?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)