Indeterminancy in physics

An experiment with fullerenes has demonstrated matter waves intereference.

Sorry to throw the cat amongst pigeons again, but looking at the C60 experiment it looks to me (and do correct me if I’m wrong) that we only have evidence (“a smoking gun” or better “a bloodied knife”) that the fullerene connects with the laser. We don’t see this (“the knife entering the victim’s body”) – we don’t see the fullerenes being thermally ionised, we see an electron count at the Channeltron electron multiplier. I’m not saying this supports many of the conclusions that Xris is jumping to, nor that QM isn’t a complete description of reality, I think it is. But it provides ammunition to those who want to rubbish science if we don’t acknowledge this. I also think that, whatever we might mean by microscopic particles, as opposed to macroscopic particles – it is important that human beings aren’t consciously aware of them, we are only consciously aware of the evidence. I think this is a philosophical problem, not a scientific problem, because science presupposes conscious awareness.

You are all kidding yourself if you think it is not a significant scientific mistake. The concept is dragging you down dead ends and all you have left is philosophy. I am not rubbishing science and for you to make that accusation can only be sign of frustration. lets be clear about this, theoretical particle science is not representative of the clearly defined sciences that have learnt respect and admiration.

I am not rubbishing science and for you to make that accusation

I never said you were. I did say you jump to conclusions though...

I am not rubbishing science and for you to make that accusation

I never said you were. I did say you jump to conclusions though...

If I do then you can easily correct me. I have no absolutes, I suppose there could be alternatives to Gaedes ropes, maybe those pilot waves or the discounted aether but if particles are determined then you will continue to find me confronting the concept.

Your starting to waffle Prismatic. This article has been around for more than ten years and it is completely erroneous to suggest it answers the question.

It is one more piece of evidence that particles manifest behavior as waves under certain conditions. I didn't expect that you would accept it or any other evidence that contradicts your misapprehensions.

I admired your knowledge of the subject but your reticence to accept that the double split experiments prove conclusively the so called particles travel as waves makes me wonder what your motives are. The question of particles travelling as waves has never been resolved so this strange attempt is beyond me.

You've never explained what you mean by saying that particles travel as waves. You seem to think that quantum mechanics says that particles are transformed into waves and vice versa by some magic rather than the subtler statement that particles sometimes manifest wave phenomena.

-- Updated June 21st, 2012, 2:56 pm to add the following --

You are all kidding yourself if you think it is not a significant scientific mistake. The concept is dragging you down dead ends and all you have left is philosophy. I am not rubbishing science and for you to make that accusation can only be sign of frustration. lets be clear about this, theoretical particle science is not representative of the clearly defined sciences that have learnt respect and admiration.

For reasons that are not clear you have acquired an erroneous view of quantum mechanics that is impervious to any and all evidence. Let's be clear about this: you have offered no evidence for your viewpoint and it is well beyond time that you did.

Please Prismatic your rhetoric is becoming a roar. Your struggling to convince even your allies, so please do not try and reverse the argument on me. I have no need to support anyone or anything,it is you that has to defend and your not succeeding. The double split experiments shows quite clearly that those so called particles are not acting like particles.

Please Prismatic your rhetoric is becoming a roar. Your struggling to convince even your allies, so please do not try and reverse the argument on me. I have no need to support anyone or anything,it is you that has to defend and your not succeeding. The double split experiments shows quite clearly that those so called particles are not acting like particles.

Actually I don't have to defend—there is a ton of evidence for particle physics and I've cited some of it here. We never get anything but opinions from you—never an argument, never a single bit of evidence. So tell us exactly how double slit experiments show that electrons are not acting like particles. Give us a genuine argument for a change instead of just your mere opinion.

Please Prismatic your rhetoric is becoming a roar. Your struggling to convince even your allies, so please do not try and reverse the argument on me. I have no need to support anyone or anything,it is you that has to defend and your not succeeding. The double split experiments shows quite clearly that those so called particles are not acting like particles.

Actually I don't have to defend—there is a ton of evidence for particle physics and I've cited some of it here. We never get anything but opinions from you—never an argument, never a single bit of evidence. So tell us exactly how double slit experiments show that electrons are not acting like particles. Give us a genuine argument for a change instead of just your mere opinion.

You have to first admit there is a anomaly. If you see no anomaly then I can not see the point of us continuing.

You have to first admit there is a anomaly. If you see no anomaly then I can not see the point of us continuing.

Tell us what exactly you think the anomaly is so that we know you understand the experimental results and have not invented something.

You have to first admit there is a anomaly. If you see no anomaly then I can not see the point of us continuing.

Tell us what exactly you think the anomaly is so that we know you understand the experimental results and have not invented something.

Lets pretend there is no anomaly. From the start when this experiment was first announced everyone just said interesting and all went home for tea and biscuits. If you want to play games, play them but please do not expect me to. Tell the world the double split experiment has never been an issue.

Tell us what exactly you think the anomaly is so that we know you understand the experimental results and have not invented something.

Lets pretend there is no anomaly. From the start when this experiment was first announced everyone just said interesting and all went home for tea and biscuits. If you want to play games, play them but please do not expect me to. Tell the world the double split experiment has never been an issue.

I am not playing games at all. You were wrong in your ideas of how an electron microscope worked, you were wrong in your claim that electrons have been observed to be in two places simultaneously, and you were wrong in your notion that photons need something to propel them through space.

If you cannot describe what the anomaly is in the double slit experiment, then perhaps you do not even understand what happens in the experiment and the anomaly is only in your imagination. If you can describe what it is that is puzzling in the experiment, then we have something to discuss.

It seems that when you are asked for a definite answer to a specific question, you start to obfuscate.

Tell us what exactly you think the anomaly is so that we know you understand the experimental results and have not invented something.

Lets pretend there is no anomaly. From the start when this experiment was first announced everyone just said interesting and all went home for tea and biscuits. If you want to play games, play them but please do not expect me to. Tell the world the double split experiment has never been an issue.

I am not playing games at all. You were wrong in your ideas of how an electron microscope worked, you were wrong in your claim that electrons have been observed to be in two places simultaneously, and you were wrong in your notion that photons need something to propel them through space.

If you cannot describe what the anomaly is in the double slit experiment, then perhaps you do not even understand what happens in the experiment and the anomaly is only in your imagination. If you can describe what it is that is puzzling in the experiment, then we have something to discuss.

It seems that when you are asked for a definite answer to a specific question, you start to obfuscate.

I was wrong about electron microscopes? strange bit of argument. Photons as I do not believe they exist makes that a strange comment and as for your electrons in two places we debated that and you simply played with words. Appear to be in two places at the same time rather than observed. So you are still managing to play silly games.

And no I will not play your game. No there is no anomaly with the double split experiments. So lets have tea and biscuits.

It seems that when you are asked for a definite answer to a specific question, you start to obfuscate.

I was wrong about electron microscopes? strange bit of argument.

Yes you were wrong about the electron microscope.You said

Electron microscopes use a certain frequency different to light, it does not prove electrons exist.They are a technical devices not a quantum experiment.

You thought the beam was electromagnetic radiation. The difference is not the frequency, but the composition of the beam—it's a beam of electrons.

Photons as I do not believe they exist makes that a strange comment

No, you asked a question:

If photons, these proposed discrete particles, are capable of traveling for almost an eternity what constantly propels them?

You thought you could disprove the existence of photons with such a comment, but it only revealed not knowing Newton's laws of motion.

and as for your electrons in two places we debated that and you simply played with words. Appear to be in two places at the same time rather than observed. So you are still managing to play silly games.

There is a definite difference between interpreting the result of the double slit experiment by saying that electrons seem as though they are in two places and saying that they have been observed to be in two places. A significant difference which I observe you do not understand.

And no I will not play your game. No there is no anomaly with the double split experiments. So lets have tea and biscuits.

It is not a game, but an attempt to describe things carefully. It's dishonest of you to claim that I am playing games. I understand your wish to characterize it as a game so you can go off in a huff rather than argue a weak position.

Ones focus plays upon the gravity of the situation...I guess.

We can know the momentum OR the position of a particle, but not both.

Sorry that I missed this discussion, and I must admit that I haven't taken the time to read the entire thread, so perhaps someone has already pointed this out. But the above statement is actually a misunderstanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

It is actually quite simple to ascertain both position and momentum at the same time. In fact, you can't know the momentum, without at the same time knowing the position.

What you can't do is predict the position and momentum of a particle at the same time, and that's something completely different.

I can be a stickler for accuracy sometimes.

.

Sorry that I missed this discussion, and I must admit that I haven't taken the time to read the entire thread, so perhaps someone has already pointed this out. But the above statement is actually a misunderstanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

It is actually quite simple to ascertain both position and momentum at the same time. In fact, you can't know the momentum, without at the same time knowing the position.

What you can't do is predict the position and momentum of a particle at the same time, and that's something completely different.

I can be a stickler for accuracy sometimes.

.

But is there an anomaly or not