0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hi Bogie, I look at the double slit experiment as a parlor trick, I leave those that disagree to their own opinion. I'm not into trying to change minds. lol
On another related topic, delayed time. Quantum theory reports entangled particles as engaging instantaneously over distance, acting as a single particle in two separate locations.
QT also accepts that two or more particle fields can occupy the same time space location. These two positions share the attribute of particles simultaneously sharing multiple perspectives of time space in different formats. lol. Time delay represents a perspective of slowing time or time elongation. It's a perspective where time can be stretched, just as a light particle is stretched at the speed of light, but time carries no fermion or bosonic value. So, what does Quantum theory not address? Quantum time. lol
As evident in entangled particles or particles sharing the same space/time location, a sense of time is absent. Being that time is non-existant in quantum it implies that any quantum argument used to explain time delay is invalid. Therefore, the only cogent argument for explaining time delay falls strictly under the principles of Einstein's relativity. Therefore, E=hv is the overriding principle and must be applied in the double slit experiments. lol
After rethinking quantum time, it maybe possible for quantum to have time progression. I previously posted about neutrinos …If what i postulated was correct, quantum does have a time ingrediant. It also brings into light a mechanism for time regression, not time delay. QuoteI have not read your post bogie, i will do now and comment as time permits.
I have not read your post bogie, i will do now and comment as time permits.
Bogie, I'll keep poking where i think you need to be poked. I'am sure you'll do the same. lolregards
Back to quantum gravity, i use neutrinos …
Hi Bogie,I truly do understand your defense of the double slit experiment. The equations work out to a high probability, but this is were the mathematics of science sometimes goes down a rabbit hole. A statistical high probability >80%, is flawed by at least 20%. …
So let’s not go forward until we either agree or disagree on the one point I just mentioned: The two-slit experiments are sort of a parlor trick in that they can’t be explained using the characteristics of the fundamental particles of the standard model of particle physics.The ball is in your court: do you agree or disagree with the statement in bold?
Reply #90But let’s not misunderstand the depth of the issue. The wave-particle is not a standalone solution for the two-slit experiments. Not only is it impossible for the fundamental particles of the standard model to explain the weirdness of the single-particle, delayed-choice, two-slit experiments, but it is just as unlikely that the wave-particle concept will mean much to you by itself.… You may know that the wave-particle concept of matter comes out of a new way of thinking about the universe that I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model.
Bogie, I will respect your wishes and allow you to work on by yourself.