0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/11/2023 13:35:18Do you have an explanatory hypothesis for the observation?Water reflect light.The surface of water is disturbed by things like the wind and fountains.What else needs explaining?
Do you have an explanatory hypothesis for the observation?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/11/2023 13:54:21Anything that's seem unusualWhat do you think is unusual?Everyone else here seem to think that what you see is exactly what we would expect to see.
Anything that's seem unusual
Quantisation in analogue to digital converters and quantisation of photon energy are entirely separate phenomena.
I've identified 6 effects related to saturation and pixelation/spatial quantization of the photosensors.
What do you think would happen if those effects don't actually occur?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2023 07:24:27I've identified 6 effects related to saturation and pixelation/spatial quantization of the photosensors. Well, I'm not convinced about the nomenclature, but the effects seem reasonable.So what?They are not "unusual".Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2023 07:24:27 What do you think would happen if those effects don't actually occur? Since they do, in fact, occur, why should I concern myself ?It's like asking what would happen if it rained cows.
What do you think would happen if those effects don't actually occur?
In this video Paul Andersen shows you how to construct explanations with evidence in a mini-lesson on Observational Explanations. Two examples are included in the video and two additional examples are included in the linked thinking slides. TERMSExplanation - a logical reason for a phenomenonObservations - a statement about something you noticePhenomena - observable events in the natural world (require explanations)Question - a sentence that asks for informationReasoning - the action of thinking about something in a logical wayThis progression is based on the Science and Engineering Practices elements from the NRC document A Framework for K-12 Science Education. ?Make observations (firsthand or from media) to construct an evidence-based account for natural phenomena.? Source: https://www.nextgenscience.org/
Quote from: paul cotter on 02/11/2023 08:47:47Quantisation in analogue to digital converters and quantisation of photon energy are entirely separate phenomena.What makes them different?
which doesn't seem to be fully explained by simple reflection from a randomly rippling reflective surface.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2023 13:41:03which doesn't seem to be fully explained by simple reflection from a randomly rippling reflective surface.And again....what bits do you think are not explained?
Do you find other effects not yet in my list?
This one shows Sun Reflection on Pacific Ocean from Space.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0aFvFJseKc
They won't be explained if the pixelation and saturation of the photosensors were excluded.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 03/11/2023 02:21:03They won't be explained if the pixelation and saturation of the photosensors were excluded.Why would you exclude pixelation and saturation, knowing that doing so would give you the wrong answer
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 03/10/2023 11:11:05But these are not enough to explain the sparkling effect.I think it perfectly explains the effect. Do you now realize that the sparkling is not quantized?
But these are not enough to explain the sparkling effect.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/10/2023 06:49:44Anything that's seem unusual from a typical image reflected by water surface.Nothing is unusual, so no explanation is necessary. Easy-peasy.
Anything that's seem unusual from a typical image reflected by water surface.
Just to add mischief to your confusion, remember that the displayed image is not usually a 1:1 mapping of the receptor pixel signals. Right now I am using a 3840 x 2160 display - about 8 Mpx - but my camera has a 16 Mpx receptor and the webcam on the computer is only 500k. There are all sorts of software interventions that "hide the joins" and either smooth out or enhance contrast in adjacent areas. In radiology we tend to capture images with the highest available spatial resolution but often "soften" the display so that tiny "punctate" features are more conspicuous - there is an optimum contrast/detail balance somewhere between the maxima of either variable.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/10/2023 13:14:29The presence of other effects, like diffraction, flaring, scattering, and various sizes of the ripple makes it hard to exclusively observe the sparkling effect.In modern digital cameras, including those in smart phones, software filters and image processing algorithms can also affect the results of sparkling effect. The resolution of the video files are typically lower than the resolution of main camera sensor. In my video, the resolution is 0.92 megapixels (1280 x 720), although the main camera itself has resolution of 50 megapixels. Some image processing must be involved in reducing the resolution.
The presence of other effects, like diffraction, flaring, scattering, and various sizes of the ripple makes it hard to exclusively observe the sparkling effect.
This movie has been captured with an intensified CCD camera. The movie consists of 200 frames, with exposure times ranging between 0,025 milliseconds and 6,000 milliseconds. It shows how individual photons, transmitted through a double slit, form an interference pattern. It shows wave-particle duality of light.
That's why I posted many videos from other Youtubers to show variations of camera resolution, their contrast and saturation levels, and resolution of the resulting videos.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 08:05:58That's why I posted many videos from other Youtubers to show variations of camera resolution, their contrast and saturation levels, and resolution of the resulting videos.None of which relates quantisation of photon energy to the appearance of sunlight reflected from rippling water.
Does anyone notice that the bright spots have various brightness? How should we interpret it?
CHAPTERS0:00 The original paper implied retrocausality1:23 Really cool metal posters: Displates!2:37 A classical interpretation would show retrocausality3:49 How the double slit experiment works6:25 Debunking the clean double line pattern7:49 The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser set up explained11:54 How the Scientis hand-selected the outcome of the Delayed Choice experiment SUMMARYThe original paper by the authors who first performed the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser implied retro causality. But retro causality is true only if you assume a classical way of thinking. But that's not the way quantum mechanics works, and I was wrong for interpreting it that way in my original 2019 video. When viewed with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics where a particle is always a wave until the moment it is measured, there is no retro causality. How the double slit experiment works: If you send photons one at a time through the slits, at first you will see what looks like a random distribution of dots. But after a while, you will see that those dots create an interference pattern. If you then put detectors on the slits to measure which slit the photon passes through, you see a pattern like you would if you were sending individual particles through the slits. The act of measuring seems to affect the results. But the change is due to the nature of quantum mechanics. All quantum objects like photons and electrons are really waves. But if they interact with anything, that is, if an irreversible energy exchange takes place, their waves become localized like a particle. This is called ?wave collapse.? Wave collapse also occurs when the photon interacts with the screen in the back. And we this as a dot on the screen.The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is like the double slit experiment on steroids. First, I want to point out that if you have a detector that measures the path, you don?t really get two clean lines of photons like it's usually illustrated. You get a single spread out distribution of photons. How does the delayed choice experiment work? It starts with the double slit, but first the photons go through a special optical device called a Barium Borate crystal. It splits a single photon into a pair of entangled photons with half the energy each of the original. Note that the process of creating entangled photons effectively results in a measurement. In other words, the wave function of the photon collapses so that it is now a particle. And since the path from the top slit to detector 1 is slightly different than the path from detector 2, the which way information of the photon is known. Thus the pattern that will show up at detector 1 will always be a spread out pattern, not an interference pattern. It doesn?t matter what happens at any of the other detectors. So why is it illustrated as changing depending on what happens at the other detectors? This is the center of the confusion, and where the idea of retro causality comes in. Well the confusion is from the way this experiment is presented - as D1 changing its pattern to match the interference pattern at D4 or D5 when the photons end up there, but showing a different pattern, a spread out pattern, if the photons end up at D2 or D3. So this implies that what happens at D2, D3, D4 or D5 influences what happens at D1. But since the path to D1 is shorter than the path to any of the other detectors, the photons reach D1 BEFORE they reach D2, D3, D4 or D5. So the implication is that the pattern at D1 which would be in the past, is being affected by what happens in the future at D2, D3, D4 or D5. So people have naturally been led to think that this means retro causality. This is wrong. The quantum eraser has no effect on the original screen. What?s really happening is that the changing patterns are due to the scientists, conducting this experiment, selecting subsets of the photons in D1 to show the same patterns as at each of the other detectors. This can be done because the particles hitting the screen at D1 and the particles going to the other detectors are entangled. #delayedchoicequantumeraser#quantumphysics So in the presentations that you see, including the one I originally made, the interference pattern you see get at D1 is nothing but a hand-selected subset of the actual original spread out pattern at D1, corresponding to photons that ended up at D4 or D5. This is done post-experiment by hand! The patterns do not change on their own. The future does not affect the past.
For comparison, double slit experiment using electrons shows more uniform intensity in each bright spot, at least until one spot is hit more than once.