Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: nilak on 07/01/2017 12:35:15
-
Can we detect the photons that cause the interference pattern in the double slit experiment if we use higher sensitivity detectors ?
I suspect that if we use special detectors based on atoms that emit photoelectrons at half the workfunction (for example 2eV instead of 4eV) of the original detectors, we can detect the photons that cause the interference pattern without destroying it.
In the delayed choice quantum eraser, we can replace d1 and d2 with the special detectors. If the d4 or d3 get a detection, the special d1 and d2 detectors should be triggered simultaneously as well. This should confirm that the electromagnetic pulse was split when passed through the slits.
-
If you interfere with the wave in any way it will destroy the interference pattern. The problem is trying to detect which slit the particle is going through. Neither. There is no particle and only a wave source. Even when electrons are shot at the dual slit its only a wave representation of the electron. The waves always interfere with themselves. Of course unless you interfere with the interference wave on c. The problem is the classic understanding of particle physics that a particle goes through space at the speed of light. Main streams understanding that the electron moves of its own accord is more magic than science.
-
If you interfere with the wave in any way it will destroy the interference pattern.
In the DCQE the BBO crystal doesn't destroy the interference otherwise you would never obtain the pattern on d0. In this case the measurement doesn't destroy the interference.
...There is no particle and only a wave source. Even when electrons are shot at the dual slit its only a wave representation of the electron. The waves always interfere with themselves. Of course unless you interfere with the interference wave on c. The problem is the classic understanding of particle physics that a particle goes through space at the speed of light. Main streams understanding that the electron moves of its own accord is more magic than science.
Yes, I agree.
When I'm analyzing these experiments I perhaps tend to me more emotional rather than relying on mathematics. However I can't accept things that don't have a clear explanation. Mainstream does exactly the opposite. It objectively follows mathematical models and accepts the mystical results.
-
[/quote]
Yes, I agree.
When I'm analyzing these experiments I perhaps tend to me more emotional rather than relying on mathematics. However I can't accept things that don't have a clear explanation. Mainstream does exactly the opposite. It objectively follows mathematical models and accepts the mystical results.
[/quote]
I accept the results of Relativity. It is the explanation of main stream that disappoints me. Once again electrons do not move by magic.
-
Relativity results were acceptable to me. It is just that I've found a mechanism, like you said about the electron and the I've realized Relativity doesn't explain it well anymore. This means I can understand those who believe relativity is correct because the theory itself is consistent with experimental results.
There are some experiments, however that support my version and contradict relativity, but the mainstream is a little bit more conservative and doesn't jump so fast to conclusions.
It is the results from QM that I find difficult to accept.