Re: Sometimes I wonder, if Physicists actually *want* to know how it works

On May 11, 2:12 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 8, 9:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 8, 10:33 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 8, 9:20 am, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 8, 9:14 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 8, 7:39 am, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 8, 2:23 am, "zzbun...@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <zzbun...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 7, 2:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 6:36 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I mean, if they came to conclusions they didn't like...

... would they just pretend to not want to know?

I see the eagerness for working with the established physical
theories.

But not so much for insight. Or exploring radical alternatives.

Obviously, it seems to me that one should balance these interests, or
rather, the world finds a way of balancing them by producing all
types.

Are there any types that feel they really balance it well themselves?

That they respect and admire the established physical theories, but
boldly wonder uncharted territory?

I'd be interested in hearing from you.

The best example of this are the observed behaviors of the Double Slit
Experiment.

Quantum Mechanics has no interest in *how* it works.

There is a C-60 molecule heading towards the slits, then magic
happens, then an interference pattern occurs.

When you say something physical must be going on, the response is
always something like:

1) Quantum Mechanics is the greatest theory ever, so shut up.
2) It's a wave-function probability (i.e. they don't realize a
probability is a mathematical function and now a description *how* it
works)

My favorite detachment from reality is when you look for the C-60
molecule you always find it exiting a single slit, but somehow, when
you don't look for it, it exits both slits.

If you perform an experiment thousands of times and every time you
look for something you find it exiting a single slit, doesn't that
mean it is always exiting a single slit?

Of course it does.

Not in QM. In QM even though all of the experimental evidence shows
the C-60 molecule always exits a single slit, all you have to do is
not look for it and it is able to exit both slits.

How can you consider yourself to be a scientist and believe such
nonsense?

How about saying, "I don't know how it works".

Or better yet, the C-60 molecule is creating a displacement wave in
the aether.

I don't see it to be as much of a conspiracy as it is that Richard
Feynman was a brilliant man and people just choose to believe what he
said and are not strong enough or independent minded enough to think
for themselves.- Hide quoted text -

   Well, Feynman is one extremely arrogant people of science which is
why
   fiber optics, distributed processing,  holograms, hdtv, on-line
publishing, auv's,
   cruise missiles, drones, self-assembling robots, and self-
replicating machines
   even exist today

Yes, the math is correct and Feynman was a genius.

It still doesn't mean he wasn't wrong about there not being a physical
explanation for what is occurring in the double slit experiment..

He didn't say that. What he said is that there is no *familiar*
physical explanation for what's going on. He also said that the
behavior of light and electrons is *unlike anything we have previously
known.* This means that it's NOT recommended to try to shoehorn them
in to familiar pigeonholes anyway.

*How* is it that if you perform an experiment one million times where
you look for the C-60 molecule exiting the slits it is always detected
exiting a single slit, but on the one million and first time you
decide not to look for the C-60 molecule exiting the slits the
molecule is able to exit both slits?

What is *physic*ally occurring that allows this to occur?

*How* is it able to exit both slits if it is not detected?

He said light and electrons *unlike anything we have previously known*
because he couldn't understand what is occurring in the Double Slit
Experiment.

That's an unwarranted interpolation on your part.

He was actually instrumental in defining this new category of thing,
something that is NOT a particle, though it shares some particle-like
behaviors, and NOT a wave, though it shares some wave-like behaviors.
It is a quantum field, something different than anything else we draw
from our common experience.

It is fine for us to categorize things as we come across them, and
pigeonhole them into "particle" and "wave" categories. However, where
the mistake lies is in assuming that those categories are both
mutually exclusive AND EXHAUSTIVE. (That is, everything must
necessarily be described by one or the other.) This turns out to be
quite wrong. There is at least an other category.

Understanding the properties of this new category is what provides
insight.

PD

So, *how* is this new category of wave-particle able to exit only one
slit when it is detected and exit both when it is not?

This is where you can learn in great detail and at considerable
leisure by reading some books. I can recommend some, if you like.

PD

If I want to read fiction, I'll read a good spy novel.
.

Relevant Pages