Indeterminancy in physics

The failure to prove a point of view always ends with desperate rhetoric and a strange confession that patience has been exhausted.

Cern and its desperate attempt to find one particle. Oct 2011 by next year we will find it,Dec 2011, yes by next year, Feb 2012, yes by the summer,June 2012 certainly by the end of the year. An estimated 6.5 billion. Yes billion. 10,000 scientists and engineers. A 100 countries, 100s of universities. 19m million a year at least. Then you tell me that one man with one novel theory should be capable of proving his theory to a critical self serving, self interested group of theoretical scientists whose reputation depends on the existance of a particle as a concept.

It is always interesting to understand the reasons people devote themselves to crackpot ideas in science. Just as in your own case there is usually an emotional prejudice against scientists as elite intellectuals living off public funding and pursuing arcane goals of no utility to the general population. This allows devotees to reject scientific evidence without examining it—as you have done here repeatedly—and permits uncritical acceptance of unsupported notions such as Gaede's rope hypothesis and his idea of the electron as a little balloon. These are crackpot notions, not alternatives to established science. They do not even offer plausibility.

The failure to prove a point of view always ends with desperate rhetoric and a strange confession that patience has been exhausted.

Cern and its desperate attempt to find one particle. Oct 2011 by next year we will find it,Dec 2011, yes by next year, Feb 2012, yes by the summer,June 2012 certainly by the end of the year. An estimated 6.5 billion. Yes billion. 10,000 scientists and engineers. A 100 countries, 100s of universities. 19m million a year at least. Then you tell me that one man with one novel theory should be capable of proving his theory to a critical self serving, self interested group of theoretical scientists whose reputation depends on the existance of a particle as a concept.

It is always interesting to understand the reasons people devote themselves to crackpot ideas in science. Just as in your own case there is usually an emotional prejudice against scientists as elite intellectuals living off public funding and pursuing arcane goals of no utility to the general population. This allows devotees to reject scientific evidence without examining it—as you have done here repeatedly—and permits uncritical acceptance of unsupported notions such as Gaede's rope hypothesis and his idea of the electron as a little balloon. These are crackpot notions, not alternatives to established science. They do not even offer plausibility.

You are missing the point. I have no objection to science or scientists that fulfil a purpose but to pursue a concept that is obviously flawed is deceptive and down right criminal. Just like the return of Christ how long must we wait before the prophesies are fulfilled. You have an experiment, the split screen, that indicates quite serious concerns that the concept of particles is flawed but we see particle scientists turn it into a magical act beyond human understanding. You can not imagine that you are part of the experiment and not the cause of it. A simple reason to the observational effect is blatantly obvious but invention upon invention refuses to accept particles or waves are the cause of the problem not the answer. You carry on believing, keep the faith, ignore the illogical consequences. Believe that any one who questions the script is fool, a charlatan a heretic.

You are missing the point. I have no objection to science or scientists that fulfil a purpose but to pursue a concept that is obviously flawed is deceptive and down right criminal.

That you personally find a concept unintuitive and fail to understand evidence for it is not sufficient reason to say it is flawed.

You have an experiment, the split screen, that indicates quite serious concerns that the concept of particles is flawed but we see particle scientists turn it into a magical act beyond human understanding. You can not imagine that you are part of the experiment and not the cause of it. A simple reason to the observational effect is blatantly obvious but invention upon invention refuses to accept particles or waves are the cause of the problem not the answer.

There is no problem with the split screen experiment, only its interpretation. It does exactly the same thing every time and there are different interpretations, none of which fit everyday experience, but none of them indicate particles are nonexistent. I would be interested in hearing your description of split screen experiments (there's more than one) and what you think they show.

Believe that any one who questions the script is fool, a charlatan a heretic.

Questioning is good, but questioning merely because you refuse to take the trouble to understand evidence is not. Questioning is good, but insisting on replacing a successful theory with a fantasy for which there is no evidence at all is foolishness.

I would be glad to hear the explaination with the split screen that indicates particles travel as particles and it does not suggest an observable effect, as the majority insist it does.

There have been many so called charlatans in scientific history that have turned out to be gifted individuals. Proposing that your opponent does not fully understand the consequences of a particular concept is intellectual snobbery. There are alternatives that have been examined without a tirade of abuse. String and plasma in certain aspects contradict many of the concepts you support and their proponents are not exactly ignoramuses.

I would be glad to hear the explaination with the split screen that indicates particles travel as particles and it does not suggest an observable effect, as the majority insist it does.

Why not tell us what you think the double slit experiments show? Give us a description and interpretation of the results.

I would be glad to hear the explaination with the split screen that indicates particles travel as particles and it does not suggest an observable effect, as the majority insist it does.

Why not tell us what you think the double slit experiments show? Give us a description and interpretation of the results.

You made a statement that requires you explain. I think its only right that I give you the opportunity.

] You made a statement that requires you explain. I think its only right that I give you the opportunity.

You haven't indicated which statement of mine needs explaining. The statement that needs explaining is your own:

You have an experiment, the split screen, that indicates quite serious concerns that the concept of particles is flawed but we see particle scientists turn it into a magical act beyond human understanding.

Tell us what that is supposed to mean.

So the split screen experiments are completely understandable and no problem arises from them? Amazing when science has to explain there is no problem with observational interference with such confidence. It never occurs to particle scientists that the concept of particles may be completely wrong. That would be a pill too large.

So the split screen experiments are completely understandable and no problem arises from them? Amazing when science has to explain there is no problem with observational interference with such confidence. It never occurs to particle scientists that the concept of particles may be completely wrong. That would be a pill too large.

The problem with double slit experiments is they are not explicable by classical mechanics as you insist they must be. You're dancing around the question again instead of explaining your statement. Obfuscation seems to be your only line of argument.

So the split screen experiments are completely understandable and no problem arises from them? Amazing when science has to explain there is no problem with observational interference with such confidence. It never occurs to particle scientists that the concept of particles may be completely wrong. That would be a pill too large.

The problem with double slit experiments is they are not explicable by classical mechanics as you insist they must be. You're dancing around the question again instead of explaining your statement. Obfuscation seems to be your only line of argument.

You are joking all you have done in the last few posts is attempt to avoid the very question you proposed would answer the double split experiment. If you look back, you claim that there is no problem with particles and the double split experiment. It's up to you how you explain it away.

You are joking all you have done in the last few posts is attempt to avoid the very question you proposed would answer the double split experiment. If you look back, you claim that there is no problem with particles and the double split experiment. It's up to you how you explain it away.

How do you explain if there is no problem to explain away? The problem is with your intuition. It comes from everyday experience and what you may know of classical mechanics, but even classical mechanics is not always intuitive. A number of posts back you asked:

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

That question reveals your intuition of the laws of motion is wrong. Nothing needs to propel them, but until they study physics almost everyone believes force is needed to keep a body in motion. I gave you the correct answer:

Newton's First Law of Motion: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Classical mechanics and ordinary intuition do not account for observed phenomena—the polarizer paradox and the double slit experiment are examples. However quantum mechanics does correctly explain and predict the behavior of particles in experiments. It is just not intuitive from the viewpoint of the everyday macroscopic world or classical mechanics.

You are still avoiding what you claimed. The double split experiment clearly shows that particles as a concept is flawed. What has occurred is blatant and systematic defence of a concept that has failed. The only response is confusion and invention.Of course you can predict, you have observed and mathematical manoeuvred the outcome to support particles. Even when it is obvious that the act measuring or observing becomes part of the experiment you still maintain particles.

You are still avoiding what you claimed.

What is it you think I'm avoiding? Be explicit.

The double split experiment clearly shows that particles as a concept is flawed.

How does it show that clearly?

"There is nothing wrong with the split screen experiment, only its interpretation" Your words. So what interpretation convinces you that particles exist ?

"There is nothing wrong with the split screen experiment, only its interpretation" Your words. So what interpretation convinces you that particles exist ?

The classical double slit experiment itself shows that electrons exist as particles as cathode ray tube behavior already strongly suggested. When electrons are projected toward the slits—and single electrons can be projected now—they pass through and register on the screen on the other side as points. Only when a large number have accumulated does an interference pattern start to emerge. Unless you make the source produce electrons of the same energy, the pattern will not be sharp, but it can be improved by using a more coherent source.

It's not the particle manifestation of electrons that needs interpretation, it's the wave manifestation—the interference pattern that emerges in the double slit experiment. de Broglie proposed that all matter has a wave nature, although it is not ordinarily observed. He derived an equation

pλ = h

where p is the momentum, λ the wavelength, and h is Planck's constant. It follows that anything with large momentum would have a very small wavelength. For objects on the ordinary scale wave phenomena would not be noticeable, but for very small particles the wave nature becomes significant as the double slit experiment shows. In fact the interference pattern of the double slit experiment has been demonstrated for large particles and even for large molecules. (It may be that even the photon has mass. It would be very small.) David Bohm extended de Broglie's idea and others have followed. I cannot judge whether it is right or not, but I understand there has been experimental evidence in favor of de Broglie's hypothesis.