So the way we'd know that something is the case is by conforming to conventions?Atla wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 4:48 pmNever heard that according to known physics, that's how photons work.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 4:36 pm
Say that the way that photons work, at least with respect to the apparatuses we can build, is so that the apparatuses emit either:
(a) 1 photon or none
(b) 27 photons in a single wave pattern or none
(c) 282 photons in multiple waves or none
No matter how low we make the output, we either get (a), (b) or (c)--either an emission that's always the same, or nothing if we turn it any lower.
How would we know whether (a), (b) or (c) is the case?
The Twin-Slit Experiment
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
I'm not asking you to rule the possibilities of your model out. I'm asking you to show how they can be ruled in. Can't you say, in at least qualitative terms, how the model you're proposing results in the actual observed interference fringes? Can you use it to make a prediction of, for example, what would happen to those fringes if the gap between the slits was changed? Or if one of the slits was blocked?Terrapin Station wrote:It's not a formal model. It's a possibility re what could be occurring, a possibility with a lot of unknowns in it. There are many different possibilities re what's really going on. The point is that we can't rule those possibilities out, and these possibilities avoid saying ridiculous things like "our consciousness determines the particle's value," or "the particles do not really have any value prior to observation," etc.
You can propose any model you like, but if it's going to be something more than a vague "anything is possible" kind of statement, it has to be testable. It has to make testable predictions. Existing theories may be philosophically unsatisfying for all kinds of interesting reasons that (if we ever got onto the philosophy) could be discussed. But they are descriptively and predicatively accurate. Any competing model which we might regard as more philosophically appealing also has to pass that basic test of fitting the observable evidence. Physicists didn't choose the existing models just to be obtuse. They were forced into them, after numerous attempts at other possibilities. The objections to QM within the physics community, over decades, are well documented, with Einstein's objection obviously being the most famous.
Sorry if this is another question with an obvious answer, like the one about longitudinal waves, but I have to check: do you understand how those fringes are created in a system with classical waves, like ripples in a tank of water? Do you understand how the path length differences from each slit to a given point on the screen results in alternating maxima (maximally constructive interference) and minima (maximally destructive interference)? And do you understand why those path length differences work like that?
As I said in a previous post, I think it's important to understand this basic pre-QM high school physics stuff first. If you do already, ignore the question.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
Simply by the fact that it's not impossible for it to be the case. (At least not practically impossible due to it being falsified.)
I did this at least three or four times already.Can't you say, in at least qualitative terms, how the model you're proposing results in the actual observed interference fringes?
This is why it's no good to write longer posts.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
So the test of a good theory is: "it's not impossible"? And that's it?Terrapin Station wrote:Simply by the fact that it's not impossible for it to be the case. (At least not practically impossible due to it being falsified.)
No. You didn't.I did this at least three or four times already.
I've read your description carefully to check if I missed anything. Nothing in that description addresses the actual results of the experiment. Read up on Young's double slit experiment, without initially thinking about Quantum Mechanics at all.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
Let the length of the path from slit 1 to the middle of the central maximum be n times the wavelength of the waves.
As a multiple of n, what is the length of the path from slit 2 minus the length of the path from slit 1 to:
1. the middle of the central maximum?
2. the middle of the next two maxima out on either side of the central one?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
The point is that much more mundane suppositions could explain what's going on "behind" many qm experiments, rather than making outrageous ontological claims so assertively such as consciousness determining otherwise indeterminate states, etc.
Hence why I'm not detailing it again. I'm not about to spend a lot of time arguing about what we're even saying or having to type essentially the same things over and over.No. You didn't.I did this at least three or four times already.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
Look at it this way. As some possibilities, imagine that what we're really dealing with are:
(1) single "waves" of photons as I suggested them above.
or alternately
(2) multiple "waves" of photons as I also suggested as a possibility above.
or alternately
(3) seemingly arbitrary "globular clusters" of photons a la:
or alternately
(4) regular/symmetrical clusters of photos something like:
or alternately
(5) bands of photons something like:
Now, why couldn't any of those possibilities (or anything else imaginable) produce any possible pattern we detect?
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
I'd think of it as more faith in game theory and human avarice, particularly when taking a big name or two down means you took their title by force which is a lot of fame, prestige, and destructive gloating to be had and that's hardly something I'd think most properly ambitious people would pass on for sentimental reasons.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 9:30 am You have far more faith than I do--and maybe quite different experience--that people don't just follow suit for a lot of this stuff, that they don't have an aversion to questioning some of the basic assumptions that have been passed on to them.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
Great. I'm sure it's possible to think of an infinite number of other possibilities too. As a general rule, it always is. How do we sift through the infinitude of possibilities that our imaginations can generate? Use one of those theories to make a prediction, in this case about how the interference fringes would vary as the gap between the slits varies. Then test that prediction. i.e. Propose a testable theory. I don't suppose you're ever going to do that, and the pictures are very pretty but they're getting more disconnected from the subject matter. You might as well just post a video of a zoom of the Mandelbrot Set, skin up and enjoy the ride. (I do actually recommend that. Type "Mandelbrot Set Zoom" into YouTube.)Terrapin Station wrote:Look at it this way. As some possibilities, imagine that what we're really dealing with are:
(1) single "waves" of photons as I suggested them above.
or alternately
(2) multiple "waves" of photons as I also suggested as a possibility above.
or alternately
(3) seemingly arbitrary "globular clusters" of photons a la:
Your general point appears to boil down to: "Existing theories will somehow be replaced by something in the future, but I don't know what." Since all the laws of Nature are all provisional, I can't argue with the possibility that any of them might be replaced in the future. But I don't think that means we throw away all the Physics textbooks and replace them with some pictures and the single statement:
"Anything is Possible, Man."
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
---
Ripples on the surface of a tank of water either spread out from a single "dipper" and pass through two slits, or are generated by two dippers. The result is interference between the two ripple sources with bands of constructive and destructive interference. (i.e. an interference pattern.)
As a multiple of the wavelength of those ripples, what is the expected difference between the path length from slit 1 (or dipper 1) and the path length from slit 2 (or dipper 2) to:
1. the middle of the central maximum?
2. the middle of the two minima on either side of the central maximum?
3. the middle of the next two maxima out on either side of the central one?
The answer to each is a small integer or half-integer number.
Based on our knowledge of the theory of how these ripples work, what can we predict will happen to the positions of those bands of constructive and destructive interference (maxima and minima) if:
4. the distance between the slits/dippers is changed?
5. the wavelength is changed?
Can we test that theory and its resulting prediction?
Note: In this experiment, a "dipper" is an object touching the surface of the water which is made to oscillate up and down, usually by being connected to an electric motor, so that it generates a continuous stream of concentric ripples all of the same wavelength.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
That doesn't enable us to say what's really going on ontologically, because it would just be a fact of the instrumental utility of what we're imagining to be the case (beyond what we're observing--and necessarily a prediction isn't an observation). Insofar as we're observing any sort of regularity, so that anything would be predictable period, rather than random, we could imaginatively fashion anything we think of so that it results in the patterns we're observing, thus enabling predictions based on it.
Not in this thread, because it's not the right context for it. If we were in a lab setting where we were actually doing experiments, then sure, I could fashion testable theories for all sorts of different "noumenal possibilities" (re what's really going on ontologically). What I'd do is construct numerous theories that all make exactly the same predictions as the theory that you're going with, with respect to the observations we're making, but that have different noumenal realities behind them--thus emphasizing that the mere fact that we can make predictions doesn't tell us what's really going on ontologically (so we should probably stop talking about things as if that's the case).Then test that prediction. i.e. Propose a testable theory. I don't suppose you're ever going to do that
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
- Halc
- Posts: 405
- Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
In case (a), there would be one dot on the detector screen. A single data point. With the other cases, there would be 27 or 282 respectively.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 4:36 pm Say that the way that photons work, at least with respect to the apparatuses we can build, is so that the apparatuses emit either:
(a) 1 photon or none
(b) 27 photons in a single wave pattern or none
(c) 282 photons in multiple waves or none
No matter how low we make the output, we either get (a), (b) or (c)--either an emission that's always the same, or nothing if we turn it any lower.
How would we know whether (a), (b) or (c) is the case?
Perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to convey. For one, how does one send 27 photons "in a single wave pattern" as opposed to not sending them that way? It seems like case b is just case a done 27 times. You can do each of them in separate labs if you want. You get the same predicted results either way, per quantum theory.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Twin-Slit Experiment
That is true, in the sense that there is no experiment or observation that could be used to distinguish between different propositions as to what is going on ontologically if all of those propositions stem from the same set of observations. That is where such metaphysical devices as Occam's razor are sometimes invoked. But if our theory doesn't make falsifiable predictions as to what will be observed then it hasn't even reached the first stage. The first stage is to lay out various theories that achieve that basic aim. Only then can we decide among them.Terrapin Station wrote:That doesn't enable us to say what's really going on ontologically, because it would just be a fact of the instrumental utility of what we're imagining to be the case (beyond what we're observing--and necessarily a prediction isn't an observation).
First point: we are observing regularity. If we weren't, there would be no experiment and no predictions.Insofar as we're observing any sort of regularity, so that anything would be predictable period, rather than random, we could imaginatively fashion anything we think of so that it results in the patterns we're observing, thus enabling predictions based on it.
And, no, we couldn't "imaginatively fashion anything we think of so that it results in the patterns we're observing". That would not be a prediction. It would simply be a description. And a description of a regularity in an observation cannot be "anything we think of". It is a subset of the set "anything we think of", whereby every member of that subset successfully describes and predicts what is observed. The candidates that you've proposed so far as members of that subset do not yet meet that criterion.
Various "noumenal possibilities" have, of course, already been considered. Consideration of such possibilities is one of the main subjects in discussions about the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. One such possibility (the "many worlds theory") is the subject discussed by the presenter of the lecture about about the Mach Zehnder Interferometer, which I referenced in a topic quite a long time ago and referred you to in an earlier conversation. There are various others. But again: those theories can't just be "anything we think of".If we were in a lab setting where we were actually doing experiments, then sure, I could fashion testable theories for all sorts of different "noumenal possibilities" (re what's really going on ontologically). What I'd do is construct numerous theories that all make exactly the same predictions as the theory that you're going with, with respect to the observations we're making, but that have different noumenal realities behind them--thus emphasizing that the mere fact that we can make predictions doesn't tell us what's really going on ontologically (so we should probably stop talking about things as if that's the case).
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023