Was Quantum Physics Fooled By Young’s Double-Slit Experiment? - Chapter 3

[@Dismythed]

I am a particlist with high standards. I agree with any conclusion that suggests that the double-slit experiment is not convincing, but I hold a high bar for discounting a commonly accepted theory. This is a straw man. Physicists use water waves to demonstrate the principle of wave interference, not the physics of light waves. No physicist in his right mind says that "photons act like water waves." But here's the thing: Water is made up of atoms (particles) at a distance from each other (Atoms do not touch; electrons do not touch; photons do not touch). Also, objects in an elastic relationship (forces reacting with a velocity delay due to temporal particle movement) make waves because of the elasticity (of time), not because they are waves. So that aspect is what needs to be explained and mathematically demonstrated, explaining every break and peak of the pattern. The elastic forces must then be shown to be due to existential mathematical relationships, not to the oximoronic "quantum field". Finally, particles do not preclude that they are moving in a wave pattern, but rather, the demonstrated wave peaks must be explained as either elastic forces or an illusion. Either way must be explained. So far, I have found no evidence for an illusion and you have not explained it. Also, you have only demonstrated wave collapse. A proper YDS experiment must be done in total or near total darkness where incoming light does not interfere or interferes only negligibly. I do, however, like the barrier and bending it. But I need to see it in a proper DS experiment. So far you have only demonstrated two single slits, not an actual double-slit. The barrier must be inserted AFTER the YDS has been rigorously modeled.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

You offer some interesting concepts that got me thinking. I wonder if your statement " No physicist in his right mind says that "photons act like water waves." is true. There are numerous videos by prominent people in the world of physics that proclaim photons act like water waves. Wonder about your concern for total darkness. Photons do not interact with each other. I thought they did until experimenting with 2 lasers it became obvious they do not. 1 beam can pass through another without any noticable effect. For that reason do not think it is necessary to do the experiment in total darkness. If you come up with any experimental ideas, let me know. If possible will give them a try.

[@entcraft44]

​@@QuantumLab-bt7yq As a physics student it was made clear to us from the very beginning: Photons act like waves. But NOT like water waves: Water waves behave highly dispersive, while vacuum or air is a non-dispersive medium. There are also other effects in water that are different from light that make water waves different. Ripple tables are used for one purpose only: To show the entire 2D development of the interference pattern instead of only a 1D slice on a screen. Popular science demonstrations are often inaccurate; but I can tell you that at university we had one ripple table experiment and dozens of laser experiments. We calculated the results of every laser experiment and were always in agreement with the result.

[@entcraft44]

@@QuantumLab-bt7yq In linear media like air photons do not interact, that is correct.

[@Dismythed]

@QuantumLab-bt7yq I didn't say "photons don't interact.“ I said they “don't touch." Photons definitely interact, but only in small ways and only by means of their fields. This is why low to no light is necessary. Photons are so small that they rarely interact, but photon scattering does occur. The more the intervening decohered light, the greater the effect. Atoms interact in large ways as their fields "bump up against each other". But photon fields are more subtle. They can tell each other their positions and move as a group, but they do not bounce off each other. Red or infrared beams are preferred because they interact least with each other and with their environment. This effect remains a mystery. Their wave nature can't even be modeled. Only their straight line movement can be modeled and even as it is perturbed by the gravity of mass. The photon wave does not appear to have any interaction, which suggests the wave is an illusion, yet, the wave does have an effect on not only where the particle lands on a vertical screen, but where it lands in a horizontal quantum eraser. This “spookiness” suggests a physical time component that needs to be accounted for. My theory is that time is a physical component and is, in fact, the only component in our existence. If you break every component of physics down to its fundamental constituents, you are left with "particles moving in time and space." However, when we analyze movement, we observe that it is a relative relationship between particles of time². Acceleration is time³. As for particles, they can be modeled as dimensional strings (not to be confused for string theory) of which we only see in a cross section of time. When modeled in a Minkowski diagram, we see that movement is an interaction of space and time, but motivated by time, not space. This means that space is the illusion, not time. Time, therefore, creates the distance between particles. The time relationship between two particles can be precisely tracked and measured in any instant in time. In the Minkowski diagram, think of the space direction as a second time direction, as the distance is impelled by the folding of time. So time must be physical and must be the only component that exists. How it generates photons and electrons is what remains a mystery, but I do not think it is beyond our understanding with further math and modeling of physical time.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

@@Dismythed Interesting reading. Have not given any thought to time "as a physical component". More foucused on, do photons interact. I say they do not and will provide experimental proof to support my claim in my next video.

[@RogerGarrett]

I would like to see a follow-up video where you discuss your results with physics professors.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

I am curiuos what you think. The videos are like working on a puzzle. What have i presented that is incorrect?

[@RogerGarrett]

@@QuantumLab-bt7yq I didn't say that I saw anything that was incorrect. I don't know enough about the issue to determine that. But whenever someone asserts that they have found something new or something that contradicts the current understanding of something, they might well be convincing, but until it's actually run by the people who specialize in the issue, it's still just one lone person being convincing. It's why professional scientists write up their ideas and have them reviewed by other scientists. Having them only SEEN by KZbin viewers is not the same. You might be convincing but also wrong at the same time. So how about, at least, you show the video to some physics professors, perhaps at a local college, get their feedback, maybe record their feedback, and do a follow-up vidoe of the results?

[@wulphstein]

Kind of handwavy. And why use music when you can just demonstrate the experiment without showmanship? In showmanship necessary to make his point?

[@joestute6434]

Just trying to make the learning process fun.

[@SciD1]

Sarcasm can be extremely satisfying when you are trying to make people understand something they just don't want to accept by any means, no matter how much evidence is presented. I don't know for Mr. Stute, but I have been debunking the double-slit experiment for years. But the wave dogma is so deeply rooted in people's minds, that it's like trying to talk to a Christian fundamentalist.

[@woowooNeedsFaith]

To obfuscate the fact that he did not use double slit nor he replicated the old experiment and its patterns and behaviours. He tested something else.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

The double slit experiment is really a single barrier experiment. If you watch kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHmxnXp8a8pnoqc at the 5:48 second mark i show how a single small diameter pin produces the same pattern as 2 slits.

[@Qwickset]

2:47 I noticed the thick part of the caliper jaw is being used instead of the sharp/tapered part. I found this an odd choice as it puts more material in the path of the photons between the source and the destination.

[@joestute6434]

My premise is the photons bounce of the edge. My guess is the second pattern is a reflection pattern. Something you will never see in a ripple tank demo.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

If i understand your comment correctly, the edge and the flat both reflected laser light.

[@mongowildman]

I have been "playing" with lasers since the mid 1980's when I built my first HeNe laser in my living room. This brings up the question regarding color. This experiment uses a green, shorter wavelength and the results are obvious. So how would a longer wavelength red work out? Will the battern be wider spaced? I do have a blue laser, but it has a focal point for burning and at 6 Watts output, might be a bit dangerous for this type of experiment. The red laser is still functional, and I will see what kind of results I get. The beam is much narrower so it may take a little creativity to duplicate here.

[@joestute6434]

found the following using google Shape When light with a longer wavelength is used, the interference fringes will be wider and farther apart. Spacing For example, if red light is replaced with blue light, the fringe width will decrease, meaning the fringes will be closer together.

[@mongowildman]

@@joestute6434 That was what I was thinking. I don't have the room to set anything up here but it makes sense.

[@kraftwurx_Aviation]

Just because the probability wave occurs on your guard rail does not mean it's not occurring it just means that the collapse of the wave function hasn't happened. It is a unique thought experiment but I think there's a fallacy in your argument. You're thinking of it as a physicality when it's actually in the electromagnetic field that the probability wave propagates in order to test your theory you would have to make sure that your setup collapses any possibility of electromagnetic probability waves traveling around your device or contraption I don't think you've isolated it in the vertical Direction at all and frankly if your waveguide guard rail is not made of something metallic and grounded there's no way for it to stop the probability wave in the magnetic and electric fields

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

The purpose of the experiment is to show the light dark pattern is not a wave interference pattern. My guardrail experiment fulfills that purpose. You bring up good points to consider, but they are beyond the bounds of the guardrail experiment.

[@donaldkasper8346]

Light reacts with the field of the matter holding the slits and surfaces, so various types including carbon to be electrically neutral have to be used.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

Can you supply a reference to support the use of carbon. If you can i will give your recommendation a try.

[@donaldkasper8346]

@@QuantumLab-bt7yq If you find your matter holding the slit has a charge, then make it grounded neutral or charge is up + or - is the obvious next steps. In fact, you don't need matter at all for a slit, it would seem vertical laser beams could be used for blocking but the outcome could be unusual. If opposing photons produces a pattern different than matter, then we learn something more about light behavior.

[@SciD1]

What are you talking about???

[@robertedson2374]

Was a laser used in the original experiments??

[@joestute6434]

May i ask you be more specific. By the term "original experiments" not sure which experiments you are referring to?

[@donaldkasper8346]

@@joestute6434 In early tests in the late 1800s there were no lasers, and probably no electricity. They used white light, probably from a candle source. Later, light bulbs.

[@barryd6332]

This would be great for a high school kid's science project.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

i prefer religion be left out of the discussion

[@bbahunter6436]

The problem is quantum labs does not understand the expeiment proving that light changes it's behavior if it's being directly observed. IE: Actual scientific experiment results are different patterns develop, depending on the simple act of turning on a detector to see the photons travelling. Fact: Photons behave differently if they are being directly observed, and that is what no one can explain.

[@joestute6434]

Some say the experiment you are referring to violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal. Any conclusions derived from the experiment are invalid.

[@joestute6434]

How would you apply the observer effect to explain the results of my experiment?

[@SciD1]

The observation is not visual. It's with an instrument. That is what confuses a lot of people! If you put an instrument in light's path, it's perfectly understandable that light will be affected. Nothing conscious on light's part. Be rational.

[@joestute6434]

@@SciD1 I am familiar with the experiment and will comment on it in a future video. Currently i am interested in what you think of all the ripple tank demos that say phtons act like water waves? My laser experiments say they do not.

[@SciD1]

​@@joestute6434 I particularly like the experiment with the guard rail. It's impossible to deny the evidence. There is absolutely no light wave interference.

[@donaldkasper8346]

Water or air against a surface is not particles and a surface. The behavior is particles against particles against a surface. This causes their velocity to slow down in contact with a surface due to friction, producing curvatures in wave patterns. The slower reflections against the faster outer water produces interferences. You are showing that photons do not slow down closer to surfaces. The surfaces can reflect water, but the light is absorbed by your surfaces since you did not use mirror surfaces. Next, aluminum foil surfaces.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

Agree with the 1st half of your comment about particle velocity slowing. i have tried reflective surfaces. see kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6TEi2N-mpWBptU. Does that help?

[@SciD1]

No, light does not lose velocity due to friction when reflecting off a surface. The speed of light remains constant when it reflects, regardless of the surface it encounters. However, the intensity (or energy) of the light may decrease if some of it is absorbed by the material, but this does not affect its velocity.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

@@SciD1 Thank you for the reminder. I was making the mistake of comparing light to how water moves over a surface. I should know better. LOL

[@donaldkasper8346]

@@SciD1 Light does not exhibit friction as far as we know, but one can probably explain red shift of star light due to attenuation with light from interfering sources, more interference the farther the light travels.

[@SciD1]

@@donaldkasper8346 I call that refraction.

[@joestute6434]

Does anyone want to comment on my experiments showing photons do not act like ripple tank demos?

[@nissimhadar]

@myspeechles Photons are excitations of a field, but they can also be seen as waves.

[@nissimhadar]

@myspeechles Particles are excitations of a field, if you want to be pedantic. But treating light as a wave is the only rational way to design a radio antenna, or explain how an electron microscope works. The words we use are tools, and we use them to help us. Photons do act like waves, in a practical sense.

[@SciD1]

​@myspeechles ​​_"And no we do not ever (ever) see a particle acting like a wave. We may say (only in poetic manner) that particles behave statistically like waves behave physically."_ It's so funny how you people use waves the way it suits your needs. Sometimes physical waves, sometimes probability waves, or waves of math. The double-slit experiment has been interpreted as light interfering with itself for 200 years! You will literally find thousands of videos on KZbin claiming light behaves like water waves. The fact remains, nobody has ever observed light waves, and never will. It was Young's interpretation, pure assumption, and it's nothing more than that today. Why aren't you discussing Mr. Stute's results in the video, instead of telling us what we all already read many times in text books and "scientific" articles?

[@SciD1]

@myspeechles blame that on KZbin's poor notification system, and its ridiculous filters. I never got notified. I have never seen your comment. So, I am sorry for not replying.

[@nissimhadar]

@myspeechles How do you explain the "interference" pattern when you fire many photons through a double-slit, one at a time? You can either invoke MWI, or interpret the photons as "waves". Do you see a third option?

[@vwcanter]

There is also single slit interference. Because there is also single slit interference when the width of the slit is comparable to the wavelength. So if you analyze the geometry of the waves carefully, and apply huygen's principle, you will find that a single slit should also have places after the slit where the wave front has traveled different distances, and so there should be interference from only one slit. But you only see it if size of the slit is comparable to the wavelength. Also, you don't understand the conclusion of Young's experiment. Your version also confirms that wave mechanics govern light.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

Can you provide a reference for experiment mentioned in paragraph 1. Contend my guardrail experiment proves the light dark pattern of Young's experiment can not be an interference pattern and we should stop using ripple tank demos.

[@vwcanter]

@@QuantumLab-bt7yq kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXTQk3yqh8-AY7ssi=op_1J-u4lUwX77la

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

Watched the video. I've done several single slit ripple tank experiments and did not see evidence of the pattern referred to in the video you recommended. All I have seen is each wave turns into one continuous arc.

[@vwcanter]

@@QuantumLab-bt7yq I like the fact that you are not content with the textbook description- you want to see it yourself. But I think you'll go farther if you augment your knowledge with the textbook description. Don't shy away from the math- it can all be done with rules of triangles, if you like geometry better. I've never tried it with water, but my guess would be that you need the aperture to be the size of the wavelength, and you need to look for the interference much farther to the sides. Remember the single slit interference pattern has a very strong peak that is wide compared to the double slit pattern. So you're looking for the place where the waves are very small amplitude, and fairly great distance from the center. The laser has a wavelength that is microscopic, and so you are only looking a fraction of an inch to the left or right to see the fringes. But the wavelength of your water waves might be a million times greater. So you're looking for interference in the very small ripples, far to the sides. And it will be quite a bit less noticeable than the double slit.

[@QuantumLab-bt7yq]

@@vwcanter You present a valid question. One i wrestled with for a long time. I am familiar with Huygen's theory. Have yet to see any experimental evidence to support it. The biggest flaw in quantum wave theory is the assumption photons interact with each other. They do not. Suggest searching DO PHOTONS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. They pass through each other unchanged. You can do the experiment yourself. Any two lasers will do. Several years ago I bought a laser and started doing experiments. That is when I saw photons do not act like ripple tank demos predict. That realization led to my guardrail experiment. I placed a barrier between the two slits preventing interference. With the barrier in place we still see a light dark pattern. The experimental results indicate if quantum wave theory is going to survive it needs a better explanation.

[@SciD1]

There simply is no "quantum weirdness". It's a 200 year old misinterpretation. Light was never a "wave". Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it is "probabilistic"... The math may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition.

[@joestute6434]

i agree 100%

[@nissimhadar]

Can you explain entanglement simply?

[@SciD1]

​@@nissimhadarthere is no entanglement.

[@nissimhadar]

@@SciD1 What do you mean? This is an observation.

[@SciD1]

@@nissimhadar it's an interpretation based on a fallacy. Quantum entanglement is impossible because superposition is impossible, it doesn't exist. It was based on the misunderstanding of the double-slit experiment. No superposition, no "quantum weirdness".