Einstein and "spooky actions"

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Watch this, and be enlightened:
[youtube]dEaecUuEqfc[/youtube]
The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know - YouTube

Way better than my attempted explanation. Thanks!

 

[idav]

Predictable doesn't necessarily entail that we can predict one specific outcome accurately. If I flip a fair coin, my prediction need not be that I will get tails. I can say that my flip is predictable because I will either get heads or get tails and will not get anything else.

What I meant by "A "variable" that has a 50-50 chance is by definition predictable" is that you've given a probability function that I can use to predict whatever that variable will turn out to be. If you tell me I have a 50% chance of getting heads, and a 50% chance of getting tails, I can perfectly predict the outcome: it will be either heads or tails.

By contrast, if you give me a coin which isn't "fair" (both sides are the same, the coin is weighted to be more likely to never land on a side but to land on an edge, or you have a secret device that can determine how the coin lands), then I don't have my 50-50 chance and I don't know what chances I do have. That is unpredictability.


Why not?



If I observe it after photons as they hit a detection screen, I will get result A. If I observe them at the slits, I will get result B. In fact, if I observe them at the slits I am guaranteed a 50-50 chance. If I observe it at the screen, I am guaranteed to get results that cannot be explained by the photon going through one slit or the other. I can, however, guarantee that I will never ever see what is expected of classical particles.



If you fired pellets at the splitting screen, some would bounce, some go through, and some go through but hit the sides of the slits sending the pellet off at weird angles. However, what will after you do this experiment over and over again (probably each time), is that you will see a cluster of spots where the pellet travelled through the slit and hit the detection screen. That is, you will find two spaces on the detection screen, both of which are where something that travelled through either slit would land, and corresponding to the spots that most of the pellets hit.

If you fire electrons through the same screen, the one place you won't ever see them land is where the pellets almost always do. They will arrive, one at a time, in a series of locations that indicate they didn't travel through either slit.

However, as they do show up on our detection screen, they must have travelled through the splitting screen. So they had to have travelled through the splitting screen, but our detection screen shows us the couldn't have travelled through either slit.





Your article was (like all such articles are) a description of an experiment that others did and which is described in full by the link to it at the bottom of your article (I believe you need access to the AAAS site to view it, as the AAAS publishes Science among other material). It is simplified, couched in non-technical language, and sensationalized to make it interesting because the actual study is the kind of thing that is not only largely unreadable to most people, but readable or not is boring.

As a result, articles that describe findings within research areas almost always make claims about the research that simply isn't true.



But we are aware of what is involved in getting a particular outcome of rolling die. We can construct a device in a room that we have customized (e.g., we've ensured that the "air" is made up of one or more gases in a specified way and that other than the movement of the "air" caused by rolling the die, the air doesn't move.

More importantly, we don't even need all of that to say with absolute certainty that we will get one of the 6 sides. We roll, we look, and we find out which one. In QM, looking at the die alters it. It's as if we have rolled the die, it has landed on one of the 6 sides, but merely by looking at the side it landed on makes the die shift (e.g., from the 5 side to the 2 side).

The evidence does suggest that at least something goes through both slits. The reason we dont ever find a photon is because it never went through both. I can throw a coin at sslit experiments or a die and get the same outcomes but how its doing it is the question that evokes spookey answers.

I agree that was a good video Poly, worth the watch.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The evidence does suggest that at least something goes through both slits. The reason we dont ever find a photon is because it never went through both.

Let's say you arrive at a security checkpoint at some top secret base. The base has two entrances, each leading to a series of rooms and hallways that are all connected to that entrance. If you go through A you will never be able to access any room or hall that you would had you the security level to enter through access B. . If you have access B, then you can only enter the rooms and halls those who have access be can enter. In short, both entrances are to the same building, but once you go through door A or B, you there you will never be able to get to any room, hall, area, etc., that you could if you entered through the other door.

Basically, whatever routes you can take from entering through A make it impossible for you to enter any section of rooms, hallways, etc., that you could had you the access to B. And the same is true if you have access to B (any and all areas in A are inaccessible).

That's what the double-slit experiment is. It shows that a particle should either go through A, or through be, and should tend to show up in the a region that straight lines through the slits lead to.

We never get that. Ever. Instead, it's as if entering your access code for the supersecret CIA facility automatically makes you exist in areas that are accessible through B and through A, even though this is impossible.

I can throw a coin at sslit experiments or a die and get the same outcomes but how its doing it is the question that evokes spookey answers.

Can you toss a fair coin once and get both heads and tails? Because that's what happens in QM.

 

[idav]

Let's say you arrive at a security checkpoint at some top secret base. The base has two entrances, each leading to a series of rooms and hallways that are all connected to that entrance. If you go through A you will never be able to access any room or hall that you would had you the security level to enter through access B. . If you have access B, then you can only enter the rooms and halls those who have access be can enter. In short, both entrances are to the same building, but once you go through door A or B, you there you will never be able to get to any room, hall, area, etc., that you could if you entered through the other door.

Basically, whatever routes you can take from entering through A make it impossible for you to enter any section of rooms, hallways, etc., that you could had you the access to B. And the same is true if you have access to B (any and all areas in A are inaccessible).

That's what the double-slit experiment is. It shows that a particle should either go through A, or through be, and should tend to show up in the a region that straight lines through the slits lead to.

We never get that. Ever. Instead, it's as if entering your access code for the supersecret CIA facility automatically makes you exist in areas that are accessible through B and through A, even though this is impossible.



Can you toss a fair coin once and get both heads and tails? Because that's what happens in QM.

That isn't what happens in qm. The photon still only goes through one slit when not peaked at and land on the screen, the difference is it gets interfered with in qstate. A photon fired still has to physically go through a slit. If it goes through both slits physically then we should have know problem observing it. When the wave colllapses, it is still a photon hitting the screen just without the interference. The photon always had a trajectory.

 

[PolyHedral]

That isn't what happens in qm. The photon still only goes through one slit when not peaked at and land on the screen, the difference is it gets interfered with in qstate. A photon fired still has to physically go through a slit. If it goes through both slits physically then we should have know problem observing it. When the wave colllapses, it is still a photon hitting the screen just without the interference. The photon always had a trajectory.

How can the photon interefere with itself if it only has one trajectory?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That isn't what happens in qm

Know physicist who has ever lived has been able to explain why even when we ensure that only one "particle" travels through the splitting screen at a time, we get impossible effects. The two places we won't see the "particles" hitting is the paths from the slits to the screen.

The photon still only goes through one slit when not peaked at and land on the screen

Photons aren't peaked. That's a quantitative (and often qualitative) description of experimental outcomes.

If you are in hallway, and there are two doors which allow you to enter two separate rooms, in order to do so you must travel through one or other of the doors. Now imaging that these were doors which opened automatically when you start to get near enough. So if you go through door A, it automatically opens and records that you went through it. Same with B.

The double slit experiment shows that you didn't go through either doors.

, the difference is it gets interfered with in qstate. A photon fired still has to physically go through a slit.

If you walk through a door, what are the chances that you never enter the room you opened the door to? Because that's what QM shows.

If it goes through both slits physically then we should have know problem observing it.

We do. The problem is that depending upon how we observe it, even after the experiment is over, the outcomes change based on the way we observed it.

The photon always had a trajectory.

Then you will have to explain that to not only every quantum physicist but everyone in every science dealing with the atomic realm. Because every experiment we've ever conducted since QM began has unfailingly showed that there is no such trajectory.

 

[idav]

How can the photon interefere with itself if it only has one trajectory?

Because of the wave part of a photons wave particle duality. Qm shows both or true and can counter eachother all day with evidence for both. The photon is going through both slits as a wave and one slit as a photon. Does it suddenly become something other than the photon being fired at the slits?

 

[PolyHedral]

Because of the wave part of a photons wave particle duality. Qm shows both or true and can counter eachother all day with evidence for both. The photon is going through both slits as a wave and one slit as a photon. Does it suddenly become something other than the photon being fired at the slits?

You're thinking of de Broglie-Bohm theory, which doesn't work. A photon is a single unified object, which is neither particle or wave.

 

[idav]

You're thinking of de Broglie-Bohm theory, which doesn't work. A photon is a single unified object, which is neither particle or wave.

I'm just going by what I see the experiment doing. Nowhere has the photon actually been observed to go through both slits simultaneously. When we shoot a photon at the slits it has to go through one or the other in order to end up non the screen, some going to the left some to the right depending on the interference. When you observe the photon it still goes 50 percent one slit and 50 percent the other slit and still lands in various spots on the screen depending on its spin, direction etc.

What you all want to say is that the photon goes through both slits but you observe it and all of a sudden the photon just magically appears where it was observed.

Isn't it easier to say that the photon is actually where it is observed? Regardless of the spookiness the photon stays a packet from beginning to end of the experiments. If it was in a wave state before firing the photon how it it not still the one photon being fired through the course of the experiment. The way people talk you'd think the photon duplicates itself and I should find two photons hitting the screen.

 

[idav]

I like the way the video described it what we know is something goes through the second slit but what is anyone's guess/interpretation.

 

[PolyHedral]

I'm just going by what I see the experiment doing. Nowhere has the photon actually been observed to go through both slits simultaneously. When we shoot a photon at the slits it has to go through one or the other in order to end up non the screen, some going to the left some to the right depending on the interference. When you observe the photon it still goes 50 percent one slit and 50 percent the other slit and still lands in various spots on the screen depending on its spin, direction etc.

What you all want to say is that the photon goes through both slits but you observe it and all of a sudden the photon just magically appears where it was observed.

Isn't it easier to say that the photon is actually where it is observed? Regardless of the spookiness the photon stays a packet from beginning to end of the experiments. If it was in a wave state before firing the photon how it it not still the one photon being fired through the course of the experiment. The way people talk you'd think the photon duplicates itself and I should find two photons hitting the screen.

If it was always a packet, and always had one trajectory, why does the spacing between the two slits make a difference? How can the photon know about slits it hasn't passed through?

 

[idav]

If it was always a packet, and always had one trajectory, why does the spacing between the two slits make a difference? How can the photon know about slits it hasn't passed through?

The second slit is the cause of the interference so if it moves the interference pattern should change. I envision it like those data circles from the video.

You throw photons in boxes and they are always in one box at a time even if it gives evidence of being in the other. Like the down up spins. The simplest explanation is they have a true and false state.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The second slit is the cause of the interference

The second slit isn't the cause of the interference pattern. It's the cause of the observations/measurements we get. If, instead of just a detection screen, somebody pointed a flashlight at an area three feet in front of the splitting screen (both slits open), and we shot electrons at the double-slits, we would not obtain the interference pattern.

If we pointed an electron microscope at one of the two slits, and then fired photons or electrons, we would not obtain the interference pattern.

The detection screen and the splitting screen (with one or with 10,000 open slits) are both interfering. Just in different ways.

I envision it like those data circles from the video.

You know what the difference between a hotel and a motel is (I found out the answer during a party where we were playing some game, and I think I'm recalling correctly)? A motel has street side access to all of the rooms (i.e., you are on a side-walk when you open the door to your room).

The illuminated points in one of the videos I posted and in videos others have that show a gradual interference pattern of single, localized illuminated spots, have a good analogy with a motel with hundreds of millions of doors.

The interference pattern is like opening the door to room 100 and finding yourself in in door 5,000. You step out and go back and enter room 100 again, only now your find yourself in room 314,159,265. You keep trying this over and over and although you tend to land in rooms around near certain rooms (e.g., 5,234; 304,050,163; 33,333; etc.) you will never, ever, ever be able to enter room 100.

That's what those illuminated spots that gradually show the interference pattern are like.

You throw photons in boxes and they are always in one box at a time even if it gives evidence of being in the other.

Focus on the line drawn from the gun to the travelling electron. And let's say we fire one at a time, all arriving as localized spots, and we get the interference pattern.

Like the line drawn above, you are asserting that there is another line after the electron hits the splitting screen. That is, there is a definite path/trajectory.

Imagine, for a moment, that we're firing pellets (an analogy I've made before, but this time with a visual aid). We expect that most of them will follow a line from the gun, through a slit, and land in the two expected locations. Some might bounce, some might never go through, but if we shoot thousands of these we will continually see that most of them follow a line through one of the slits and arrive at the expected locations.

The reason for the motel analogy is because no matter how hard we try, doing this with electrons instead of pellets means never hitting those places but hitting a totally different set of line. Moreover, if we treat them as waves going through both slits, we can draw new "expected locations" lines. The one place we won't draw lines, however, is where they are now.

Let's say we run 10,000 experiments and each time we fire a trillion electrons. How can we say there is a definite trajectory when we never see the "spots" form lines in the non-quantum expected locations? And how are we able to account for the new lines by factoring in the fact that the electron when through both slits as a wave?

That's why QM is like the motel analogy and the other one I made about rooms. If we treat the particles as having trajectories, it's like always trying to go through door 100 and never, ever, ever getting there.

 

[PolyHedral]

The second slit is the cause of the interference

How? The photon never interacts with it.

 

[idav]

How? The photon never interacts with it.

Does it matter how, perhaps a physicist could explain. All I know is when you add the second slit you get interference. No second slit means no interference. Doesn't take much to see that having a second slit is the source of the interference.

 

[PolyHedral]

Does it matter how, perhaps a physicist could explain. All I know is when you add the second slit you get interference. No second slit means no interference. Doesn't take much to see that having a second slit is the source of the interference.

The physicists' explanation is that the photon is wave-like, takes all possible paths (including through both slits) and that's why the two slits can affect the results. This doesn't make any sense with point-like, counterfactual definite photons.

 

[idav]

The physicists' explanation is that the photon is wave-like, takes all possible paths (including through both slits) and that's why the two slits can affect the results. This doesn't make any sense with point-like, counterfactual definite photons.

I don't think wave particle duality is supposed to make sense and we have yet to explain the mechanisms. I've heard explanations like entanglement which would make sense. So the superposition going through a second slit but then photon still only goes through one.

Why would a single photon being projectected at two slits suddenly become two photons? I this a single photon from beginning to end of experiment. Like I've said we can go all day to show evidence that a photon goes through the slits as both a particle (one slit) and as a wave (two slits). That's what the experiments show evidence of and what we are able to observe.

 

[PolyHedral]

...I was just about to post asking Legion if he'd seen a response I made, but apparently I made it in the universe next door. Oops.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why would a single photon being projectected at two slits suddenly become two photons?

It doesn't. With very few and very recent exceptions, we were stuck with measurements that were either wave-like or particle-like. Thanks to advanced imagine technology and techniques, we are able to go beyond that.

Like I've said we can go all day to show evidence that a photon goes through the slits as both a particle (one slit) and as a wave (two slits).

The photon was never a particle and never a wave. It's never two photons going through both slits, never a wave going through two slits. Rather, it simply doesn't behave like anything we are familiar with.

[/quote] That's what the experiments show evidence of and what we are able to observe.[/quote]
The experiments have shown that there are no particles. There are just things that become more and more localized very fast.

 

[idav]

The photon was never a particle and never a wave. It's never two photons going through both slits, never a wave going through two slits. Rather, it simply doesn't behave like anything we are familiar with.

It is something we are familiar with that is why we call it a wave.