The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Atmosphere is what's compromissing the double-slit conclusion?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Atmosphere is what's compromissing the double-slit conclusion?

  • 3 Replies
  • 1114 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

This topic contains a post which is marked as Best Answer. Press here if you would like to see it.

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 232
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Atmosphere is what's compromissing the double-slit conclusion?
« on: 26/08/2018 20:18:58 »
Time connects all 4 dimensions, reason why the act of observing affects the whole experiment.
  Not magic, simple quantum entanglement, one isolated action causes a ripple of infinite possibilities within the environment, like domino's.
 So is very easy to visualize that if one gets a falling object, on the quantum perspective (with a present observer) there is the necessity (of the observer) to imply that the object must make some sort of sound, the sound must have a pre-determinate speed, and each and every single aspect is intricate with the other in a specific arrow, mix all that on dimensions you got arrow of time, spinning towards infinity, therefore, individual particles entangled to each other, each one with their specific local time due different frames of reference.

  Even so, the observers necessity is what is implying the reality to "do or be", remove that, still dot-wave at the same time (only and only when) time is relative.
 Time is relative only if one have more than one point of reference, on this case, the (eye,mind,toughs,flesh,wherever).

 The "observer" is the point of reference itself in comparison to the electron it is observing, therefore, (Observer) by offering a point B to the straight line, added "environment" to the arrow.

 In a nut shell, until there was a B point of reference, the electron only needed to seek the curvature of the arrow of time, from the machine towards infinity, point B added + one direction, and since light is constant at C, the only possible outcome is one particle spiting into waves of possibility in between A+B+C, and each wave interfering with each other.


 Dot-Wave configuration, not at the same time still a single DOT, but projected and overlapped towards itself at C towards infinity, until mass.

 Seems backwards, light as a product of space-time?
Logged
 



Offline evan_au

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 8989
  • Activity:
    73%
  • Thanked: 883 times
    • View Profile
Re: Atmosphere is what's compromissing the double-slit conclusion?
« Reply #1 on: 27/08/2018 11:30:48 »
Quote from: OP
Atmosphere is what's compromissing the double-slit conclusion?
I'm sure the double-slit experiment has been done with electrons, in a very good vacuum.

No atmosphere to mess up the results.

What the leading question has to do with the rest of the original post, I have no idea.
Logged
 

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 232
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Atmosphere is what's compromising the double-slit conclusion?
« Reply #2 on: 28/08/2018 03:37:56 »
Make sense I know, but when one is considering about light, I do not think a vacuum would make much of a difference to my speculation.
  About shooting electrons, I do not believe that was the case. More like electron not being but existing at C.
  What I mean is, that the very wave of the passing electron has the potential to become one for each intersection.
  All that it really takes is the waves on the left start to interfere with the waves on the right, eventually one electron will miss the jump and cascade the whole experiment.

   Another consideration is that this universe has direction.
 Someone has ever tried to centrifuge the whole experiment while running it?
Logged
 

Marked as best answer by Alex Siqueira on 11/12/2018 23:49:43

Online Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21291
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 485 times
    • View Profile
Re: Atmosphere is what's compromissing the double-slit conclusion?
« Reply #3 on: 28/08/2018 09:00:34 »
Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 28/08/2018 03:37:56
About shooting electrons, I do not believe that was the case.
It does not matter what you believe.
People have done electron diffraction studies in vacuum chambers.

Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 28/08/2018 03:37:56
 Someone has ever tried to centrifuge the whole experiment while running it?
The Earth is spinning. Essentially all these experiments were done in a centrifuge.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Dullius Siqueira



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.098 seconds with 43 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.