>This is supposed to be real
>>12943897contrary to /b/‘s understanding of physics, in fact actual physics does not say that is real
>>12943897It's not about whether your eyeballs are staring at it and communicating to your brain, it's about the instruments used to be able to detect their passage through the slits.It's like if you had a racetrack that was completely closed off to you and normally you can only see the finish line. But you can raise speed bumps from below onto the track using a lever and they'll send a signal when a car runs over them. Well now you can be sure that the cars are actually participating in a race and not just arbitrarily lining up at the finish line. But you'll find that the average anticipated completion time was increased because your method of observation, the speedbump, slowed them down.
>>12943951actually mind blown
Any time you see the experiment actually performed you always see the interference pattern, has the two grouping pattern ever actually been observed when the experiment has been conducted?
>>12943973have you tried searching it on google?
>>12943978Yes, in any image that is not a simulation but said to be a picture of the light, or from a plate the interference pattern is always there. Any time they show a non-interference example they achieve it by closing one of the slits.
>>12943978Anyway looking at a paper from 2013 it says they detect the particle as it is emitted, so they 'know' they are doing one particle at a time, this is what gives them the 'particle' idea. But the observed pattern is always the interference one. In OPs image the bottom example is never actually observed as far as I can tell. I must be missing something as to why they use it as an example.
Nothing is real, we live in a simulation.
>>12943951Beautiful way of explaining it
>>12943951Yeah except you have a small problem. Once you pull the lever, you end up with boats, not cars at the finish line. It's not a precise analogy.
>>12944570Do you know why we never observe the bottom pattern in OPs image? They always say this is what happens when it's 'watched', but they never demonstrate this pattern physically. Only in drawings.
>>12943951That's fucking stupid.
>>12944027The reason they use it as an example is because that's how it should look. Remeber photons are particles, as well as waves. If we think of photons as a BB and we shoot 1 BB at a time at the slits that's how it should look.>>12944582It follows the heisenberg uncertainty principle. See above as to why it doesn't show up like that. How can you conduct the experiment without observation?
>>12944645But they say it looks like the 2 lines when observed, the wave interference they DO see is supposed to be when it's not watched. So why can't we actually see the pattern it's supposed to have when it's observed going through the slits?
>>12944657I shouldn't have used the word observed, that was a poor choice. More correctly is should be measured. When we measure which slit the photon passes through, that's when the wave function collapses. If you and I were just setting up the double slit test and simply shined a light at it, we would see the interference pattern. We don't ever "see" the bottom one, because us simply observing it doesn't collapse the wave function.
>>12944670So how do we know the bottom one is even possible if its never been seen? Whenever I look at the papers on this to show a non interference pattern they do so by blocking one slit, so of course there's no interference pattern. Why can't they put some sort of measuring device at the slit to get the bottom pattern?
>>12944677As far as I'm aware they are able to measure double slit pattern by measuring the proton at the slit by just putting up a photon detector. I haven't seen anyone actually block it off with something solid.
>>12944703Ok, I just haven't seen the 2 line pattern in any of the papers I looked at. For example in (b) P1 and P2 are when one slit is blocked (slit 1 and slit 2 respectively). That's how they show the 'particle' nature. To me that seems like cheating. How do we know it behaves like a particle ever?
>>12944029>Nothing is real, we live in a simulation.everything is real, the self is a simulation
>>12944713Do you have another example? I don't see any indication that either slit is ever blocked. But I do find it strange how they depict figure (b) as 2 separate measurements. But again, I also don't see where it was blocked.
>>12944762It's the part marked 'mask' An electron beam passes through a wall with two slits in it. A movable mask is positioned to block the electrons, only allowing the ones traversing through slit 1 (P1), slit 2 (P2), or both (P12) to reach the backstop and detector.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033018/
>>12944029>>12944748The duality of manAlpha and omegaYin and yang Life and deathLessons that we've forgotten along the way.
>>12944770How the hell do you apply natural philosophy to something not physical
>>12943897>>This is supposed to be realAccording to whom? Please cite two published articles in physics journals claiming this to be true. I'll wait.
>>12944782Well there are multiple articles showing the first pattern, I can't find any showing the 2nd pattern is all.
>>12943897you are one agent that can only experience one timeline but at the same time you're an infinite number of agents with the possibility of a multitude of possible outcomes. Direct observation of reality at small scales is fundamental encoded as probability distributions. As a mathematician this is analogous to the inability to solve some differential equations, so the best we can do is numerical approximate, this approximation is the Heisenburg uncertainity principle.
>>12944787I can't find any showing the second pattern either. That's the point of my question. I see the movable mask paper cited up top, and I think that's pretty convincing that bottom pic never shows up. The only place I've see it pop up is in Dr. Quantum videos.
>>12944795I know the photoelectric effect is given as evidence for the particle nature, but maybe that has another explanation? I don't know. It seems to me they're all look it shows waves as if it behaving like a particle is set in stone and all they need to show is the wave effect. It's just convincing me it's always a wave honestly.
>>12944773That's the question. It's another duality between the physical and the metaphysical. That's "the answer to the universe" if you will. Your thoughts don't physically exist, but they do exist. Your conciousness can't be quantified, but it can be qualified. There hasn't been a person alive that's been able to answer your million dollar question.
>>12944582I can literally do this at home with a laser pointer, a hair or cardboard with two carefully cut slots, and polarization foil.
>>12944845Do you have a picture of someone that's done it? that would help.
>>12943897I think the best way to explain it is to substitute a light source for a radio antenna and simplify it further with another analogy: the antenna is an axle spinning in water creating a whirlpool around it, but technically it'd be alternating, like the agitator in a washing machine.You stick a wooden board with two slits in it into the water and the vortex in the water travels through the slits in the wave-like manner we're all familiar with. It doesn't come out in a straight line from the source, but in a spiral with a greater influence in one direction than the other, depending on which direction the vortex is moving at the time. Average it out with persistence of vision and you get the "wave" interference pattern.Stick a second antenna/axel in the water parallel to the original but 180° out of phase with it. It acts like the eye cones/sensors that "observe" the light, reacting to it it to produce its own wave like a tuning fork. The vortex from the end of one antenna/axel arcs over to the end of the other through the water, and looking down at both vortexes turning against each other there's a clear resemblance to a vortex ring. What happens when you fire a vortex ring at a double-slit? You get two "particle" vortexes. It's the same way an LED works.TL;DR version: Light is just a wave easily explained with mechanical physics.
>>12944969light is a wave? I'm pretty sure I read it's a particle somewhere
>>12944845doubt it. double slit experiment requires the slit width to be small.
>>12945043Yeah and I never got the picture I asked for.
>>12945049You can get it if the slit width is much larger than the beam width.
>>12945043OR A HAIRcutting with a razor is thin enough. Damn you people seem to have zero physics education.
>>12945065Can you show a picture of someone that's done it? Please? I want to see what it looks like.
>>12944861>>12945074>I'm too duuuumb for Google, spoonfeed meeeehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsFtJ0s2XE
>>12945083I don't see 2 separate lines, I only see a single one that looks like the interference pattern?
>>12944029If we live in a simulation why didn't the Demiurge patch it so its consistent?
>>12945083Seriously, I must be stupid because you say all I have to do is search google and I have, but I never see anything but the interference pattern. Maybe you don't understand. I'm looking for an experiment that replicates this part of OPs image. I must be dumb because I don't see that in the video you gave.
>>12945099Ah yeah, he's too far away from the source, so the two dots overlap. It's visible a bit better here:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=djjjh7xGI4QHe also shows that these are two spots, although quality is bad.
>>12945099well the guy who linked you a video is a fucking moron, the point of this video was probably to build something resembling quantum eraser with $50 budget, but to do an actual experiment you need two quantum entangled particlesyou need something like BBO crystal for that
>>12945065what does a hair have to do with anything? >Damn you people seem to have zero physics education.i can guarantee you that i have more physics education than you. as a matter of fact, i educate hundreds of students in physics every year.
>>12945152Can electromagnetic waves interact indirectly? If so what is that mechanism. Thanks.
>>12945147So are you saying there's no paper I can look at where they properly do an experiment and show the two lines like the bottom part of OPs image? I don't claim I'm proving anything by asking or that I know anything. I just want to know why this example is shown if I never see it in practice. People keep saying search, but nothing quite looks like the two distinct lines.
>>12945147>fucking moron,Go fuck yourself. >but to do an actual experiment you need two quantum entangled particlesYou're retarded.>>12945152>what does a hair have to do with anything? Same effect.>i can guarantee you that i have more physics education than youAbsolutely not. Here, they show us the double slot experiment with a hair and two slots in schools. >as a matter of fact, i educate hundreds of students in physics every year.Artistic work of falsehood. You'd know why a hair works as well.
>>12945168>Can electromagnetic waves interact indirectly?With what? You can't even formulate a question correctly, moron.>>12945176>Here, they show us the double slot experiment with a hair and two slots in schools.The only one who knows what "here" means is you. The tell-tale sign of a pseud.
>>12945199>The tell-tale sign of a pseud.Says the "physicist tutor" who doesn't know dual effects and doesn't understand that the two lines in OP pic overlap when too far away from the source. kek
>>12945209Didn't claim to be a tutor. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>12945230> i educate hundreds of students in physics every year.I demonstrated basic understanding of physics. All you did was go and call people morons out of your own misunderstanding of the double slot experiment, which needs a coherent source of particles, no nonlinear crystals. Stop LARPing.
>>12945174You’re confused about what’s weird. Light was thought of as a wave, while electrons were thought of as particles. The weird thing about quantum is that if you have a weak enough light source and sensitive enough detectors, the light interacts with the screen in discrete point-like collisions, as if it were a particle. Likewise, we can send electrons though a double slit and observe interference effects, as if they were waves. Obviously we expected interference from light. It was generally thought to be a wave, so interference wasn’t surprising. As far as getting the bottom interference pattern, it’s difficult with light because measuring the passage of a photon is challenging. If you want to see the comparison, it’s much easier to measure (or not measure) the passage of electrons and find the two distinct interference patterns
>>12945268>buzzwordscool cope, bro. educating hundreds of students doesn't imply tutoring, lol. it implies professorship.
>>12945273OK, I'm just looking for more evidence of the particle nature for light that's all. I really know nothing. I see lots of wave stuff, but is the main particle evidence the photoelectric effect or something like that rather than this slit thing?
>>12945276>educating hundreds of students doesn't imply tutoring, lol. it implies professorship.Wrong. Global tutorials are a thing. Stop LARPing. You've obviously never had any physics beyond maybe sleeping through undergrad. Otherwise you'd know that the double slit experiment works with a hair as well and that a quantum eraser is exactly the double slot experiment in the "measuring which path the particles take" state.God damn this place is retarded. Also, I already posted a video where the two spots are clearly visible.
>>12945282>I'm just looking for more evidence of the particle nature for light that's allNot him, but there are single-photon detectors. Also check this link >>12945144 for two spots. Or do it yourself to have full control.
>>12945304Yeah and in the paper I did read they made sure to be 99.99 something percent confident they were shooting one 'particle' at a time, yet they still ended up with a wave pattern. So my big concern is a particle really what I think it is? Or is it some fuzzy thing to begin with? I'm just very confused, maybe I shouldn't even worry about it.
>>12945325That is the point. It’s particle-like in the way it deposits energy on the screen (all at once in a single spot), but wave-like in that it shows an interference pattern. This is the big idea of “wave-particle duality”. Real things don’t appear to be just waves or just particles. They’re fuzzy mixtures of properties we think of as wave-like and particle-like
>>12945325>So my big concern is a particle really what I think it is?Can you describe what your image of a particle is?>Or is it some fuzzy thing to begin with? The terminology is really confusing. There are two classical concepts that used to describe phenomena; waves and particles. I guess you know what waves are, and particles are rigid volumes of matter (not necessarily zero volume). The double slot experiment baffled people, because it showed them they couldn't categorize all phenomena into exactly one of those categories - that's the duality. Everything showed both properties in the right circumstances.This was solved by quantum mechanics, where, e.g., light is neither particle nor wave, but actually a quantum particle. I guess that's what you mean with "fuzzy thing". In extreme situations it is exactly like a classical particle, in others exactly like a classical wave. In reality, it's neither, but something "in-between".>>12945343>It’s particle-like in the way it deposits energy on the screen (all at once in a single spot), but wave-like in that it shows an interference patternNo. Waves can also deposit energy in any way. You see that in single-photon double slit experiments, where single photons (or electrons or whatever) are detected, yet they still show interference on the screen after a while. The only thing dividing wave and particle nature are the different patterns.
>>12945199>With what? You can't even formulate a question correctly, moron.CAN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES ('S' MORE THAN ONE)INTERACT (I.E. INTERACT WITH ONE ANOTHER)DUhhh. Moron. Kill yourself you pointless cunt. I'll fucking strangle you to death.
>>12945291He's a fucking fake. Fuck him. He's all touchy and angry because he knows in reality there's nothing of real substance to him.
>>12943897 >>12943951>instruments used to to detect passage effects it.YESpropagate 2 ways. as particle (corpuscle) as wave-function (superposition)when it propagates as a wavefunction; detector seems to be "loading" or "shunting" the wavefunction & causes superposition collapse back into a particle.>But you'll find that the average anticipated completion time was increased because your method of observation, the speedbump, slowed them down.I disagree with this analogy and instead go with "shunting" the circuit analogy as used in electronics.why?it isn't delaying it.Delaying is a different thing."Delayed choice quantum eraser double slit experiment"(turns 1 photon into 2 quantum entangled photons) OBSERVED: out of phase, decoherence pattern  ERASED: interference pattern (superposition)YOUTUBE videos state OBSERVED outcome is a "clumped pattern" and show you a 2 Band Pattern;but this is incorrect.. it is a decoherence pattern.seehttps://youtu.be/8ORLN_KwAgs?t=260DECOHERENCE PATTERN:this is NOT a wavefunction collapsing back into a particle.this is STILL traveling as a wave but those waves that interfere with itself are out of phase with each other and cause a decoherence pattern.why? travel path length/distances of those 2 quantum entangled photons is not EQUAL, nor in PHASE.IF the travel length/distance of the 2 entangled photons was the same DISTANCE or in PHASE then the interference pattern would be a regular interference pattern and we would have measured which slit in entered & kept interference pattern.To verify this experimentally...."Delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment would have to be redone "3 DIFFERENT WAYS"with three different travel path length/distances[PHOTON A] > [PHOTON B] out of phase[PHOTON A] = [PHOTON B] in phase[PHOTON A] < [PHOTON B] out of phaseinterference pattern is as precise in its length as is a gas LASER cavity.cavity length must an integer division of wavelength to be coherent
>>12943951this is wrong.
>>12945421take your meds schizo
>>12945431do you not understand that the interference pattern is coherent waves adding and subtracting?when two sound waves are in phase they add.when two sound waves are 180 degrees out of phase, they cancel out [active noise control]if you make one out of phase with the other you get a complex waveform that is irregular.draw it out on paper if you are unable to imagine it in your head.do you not know how waves combine?
>>12943897these things are great tools for stealing shit. you always know when someone is looking at you.
>>12945393True, true. Sorry for taking the bait.
>>12943897 >>12945431I forgot to point out here >>12945421.THIS is NOT the double-slit experiment.THIS is the "delayed choice quantum eraser double slit experiment".THIS involves turning 1 photon into 2 quantum entangled photons..THESE 2 quantum entangled photons are causing spooky action at a distance.IT is a "decoherence" patternNOT a 2 Band pattern.
>>12945507Nobody cares about that though.
>>12945523>Nobody cares about that thoughNobody care about how to detect which slit the photon goes thru & keep the wavefunction in superposition?RESOLVE which slit the photon goes thru & not collapse its wavefunction?THAT is the ENTIRE GOAL of the experiment.I have no idea what you're talking about.
>>12945507>>12945533take your meds
>>12945431>>12945523>>12945561>can't refute with science.this is a trollthis is an uneducated teenager
how does /sci/ feel about this recent wave of very reputable scientists shiting all over the bullshit untestable modern theoretical physics? string therory, multiverses, sub-particles?
>>12945421 (You)>cavity length must an integer division of wavelength to be coherentcavity tube length must fit an integer number of LASER wavelengths along it...sorry, my bad..anyone whom knows anything about how GAS tube impact LASERs work will understand this.
>>12944027pic at bottom is observed by breaking coherence of the 2 waves going out of the slits. This can be done for example by measuring one slit. If the particle interacts with the detector, its coherence with the previous wave is broken by losing energy/frequency and delivers no observable amplitudes.
>>12944582dude, just make the slits bigger or further apart, or use particles with shorter wavelengths. This is the easy version of the experiment.
>>12945049literally take a flashlight and shine it through a carboard box with 2 slits.
>>12943951Delayed choice quantum eraser.
>>12945574>>12945507you need to work on your presentation, thats why're they're trying to troll you so hard.Everything you've posted is correct, it just sounds like a fucking spaz wrote all of this shit out. Yes, QE is what scientists (contemporarily in the context of QM discussion) mean by the double slit experiment. >>12945143you need to put polarizers in the slits
"""Believing""" anything related to recently developed quantum physics is worse than """believing""" in psychology
>>12945831>you need to work on your presentation, thats why're they're trying to troll you so hard.The delayed choice quantum eraser double-slit experiment.1 photon is turned into 2 photons.OBSERVATION does not collapse the wavefunction and give a 2-band-pattern so it is not traveling as a particle... it is still a wave.The two photons are quantum-entangled.IF the travel distance of both photons is the EXACT same or in PHASE then I'd expect to see a "coherent interference pattern".... and we'd also know which slit it went thru.Instead we see out of phase waves creating irregular waveform patterns.. which is the pattern here >>12945421THIS is simple to understand.THERE is nothing wrong with my posts, YOU are the same TROLL.>>12945831 >>12945561 >>12945523 >>12945431samefag.YOU are a teenager whom trolls, nothing more.
>>12945899Meds. Take 'em.Seriously though, your writing style reeks of schizotypical thought patterns. Please ask friends and family if they noticed anything weird in you. I'm dead serious.
>>12946160>>can't refute with science.this is a trollthis is an uneducated teenagerThere is nothing wrong with my posts, the problem lies with you.You are obviously some kind of needy attention seeking whore with mental issues.>>12946160>>12945831>>12945561>>12945523>>12945431samefag.YOU are a teenager whom trolls, nothing more.Tell me how to measure if the photon went thru slot A or slot B and keep the coherent interference pattern intact..Doing this is the whole goal of what science has been trying to accomplish.You tell me how.Link to your posts, show me what worthwhile new discovery you have enlightened us with.Prove to me that something you post is worth more than the same old same old meaningless shit.
>>12946240No.Also really see my advice to you here >>12946160, I really do mean it Anon. I mean you no harm, I'm worried. That's all.
>>12943951Didn't the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment falsify that idea though? My understanding is that when the photon went through the machinery to find out which slit it went through, its entangled buddy made the blotch pattern, but when it went through the same machinery in a way that didn't tell it which slit, it made the interference pattern.
>>12946287>No.Exactly.It looks like you know that you are STUPID.YOU have nothing at all to present because your posts are worthless.YOU are clearly bi-polar schizophrenic and are now having an episode.YOU are clearly mentally unstable lashing out on a public forum.YOU are freaking out right now realizing you're an incompetent buffoon.>>12946160>>12945831>>12945561>>12945523>>12945431>>12946287samefag.YOU are a teenager whom trolls, nothing more.>I'm actually stupidseethe & cope.
>>12946314>YOU are clearly [...] lashing out on a public forumAm I? Can you quote where I did so? I'll apologize if I did.
>>12946386>Am I? Can you quote where I did so?>>12945431>take your meds schizotrolling>>12945523>Nobody caresbelittling>>12945561>take your medstrolling>>12945831>sounds like a fucking spaz wrote all of this shit out.trolling>>12946160>Meds. Take 'em.trolling>Seriously though, your writing style reeks of schizotypical thought patterns.belittlingtrolling>Please ask friends and family if they noticed anything weird in you.belittling>I'm dead serious.trolling>>12946287>Also really see my advice to you here >>12946160,belittlingtrollingI think you have an actual condition & can't help yourself.you have an abrasive personalityyou have an inferiority complex & are seriously threatened by others whom ask you to prove your worth, because you instead refuse to compete using competitive ideas & instead troll to hide your own self-doubts.you have a poor self-confidence & need to belittle others to feel good about yourself.>>12946386>I'll apologize if I did.I don't believe you recognize your own mental problems, so you don't realize that you're behaving inappropriately.
>>12946308Could somebody who doesn't weirdly capitalize random words explain this? It really does look like the information about which slit it went through, as opposed to the machinery interfering with the photon, is what changes the behavior of how it goes through the slits.
>>12946460Yes, it is unfortunate. Probably just another immature kid. A shame, for those who want to discuss intellectually provoking matters.
>>12946481>>12945726It’s about coherence of the wave function(s)
>>12946460Most of those aren't me.>>Nobody caresRefers to you talking about DCQE, which aren't the topic here.>belittlingNo, I'm genuinely concerned. I mean it. Please seek help. I'm worried, Anon. I'm dead serious.Others aren't me, but you called me incompetent, stupid, my posts are worthless, bipolar schizophrenic, unstable, among other things. What's up with that?
>>12946460>by others whom ask you to prove*who>>12946481You're right. What actually causes the particle behavior is not the measurement itself, but whatever you're doing that could facilitate a measurement. The polarization filters don't really measure which slot a photon goes through, but you could use them to get that information. It's really weird to think about.
>>12946770>*who >>12946240>Tell me how to measure if the photon went thru slot A or slot B and keep the coherent interference pattern intact..>Doing this is the whole goal of what science has been trying to accomplish.>You tell me how.>Link to your posts, show me what worthwhile new discovery you have enlightened us with.>Prove to me that something you post is worth more than the same old same old meaningless shit.>>12946758>which aren't the topic here.The DCQE is the double-slit experiment & is mentioned in posts in this thread before I got here.My posts are relevant to using DCQE to show how to detect which slot the photon went thru while keeping the interference pattern coherent.. That is the whole objective of the double-slit experiment.You are taking backsteps and glorifying a simpler watered down childrens version of the DCQE so as to feel good about yourself by negating my contribution.In reality, you previously hadn't considered things of next level complex, nor understood the valuable insights it would offer.>No, I'm genuinely blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahbipolar schizzo serial troll samefag>but you called me incompetent, stupid, my posts are worthless, bipolar schizophrenic, unstable, among other things. What's up with that?You got what you gave.Prove you got but did not give first.>Most of those aren't me.Prove it schizzo serial troll samefag
lmao the absolute state of """""science""""
>>12943951Except that you still have to observe the results to know what happened at all anon. It's true nothing is there until you look. This is exactly why dreams are possible at all. You can go from a room and turn around and be outside in a forest. That is because nothing exists until you see it. It's kind of like a video game it gets rendered as it is needed. This experiment doesn't matter at all but it does draw attention to this fact. It's true on the macro scale you don't need to look at particles to know this.
>>12945793Completely meaningless experiment. It only seems to have strange results if you don't understand the basics of probability and quantum systems.
>>12943897thinly veiled homework thread
>>12946939>The DCQE is the double-slit experiment & is mentioned in posts in this thread before I got hereWe were discussing a simple quantum eraser, which creates the pattern on the bottom of the OP pic. >You got what you gave.I never insulted you. You're really disrespectful. >Prove it schizzo serial troll samefagAlready did: >>12946160
>>12945424No it is not
>>12947080>We were discussing a simple quantum eraser, which creates the pattern on the bottom of the OP pic.YES, and my very 1st post in this thread explained that >>12945421 the DCQE does not create the 2--Band Pattern.I stated that the DCQE creates an out of phase decoherence pattern & I posted a pic of that decoherence pattern..I stated that youtube videos show it as if it was the 2-Band Pattern, but this is not true. I provided a link to a video from PBS Space Time https://youtu.be/8ORLN_KwAgs?t=260 which is a reliable source, he's way better qualified than you will ever be.>I never insulted you. You're really disrespectful. >Already did: >>12946160You posted 1 example >>12946160, then act like a complete saint in spite of it stating....>Meds. Take 'em.>Seriously though, your writing style reeks of schizotypical thought patterns. Please ask friends and family if they noticed anything weird in you. I'm dead serious.nah, fuck off you pathetic midwit, this is your bipolar schizo behaviour, so fuck off.you got thereafter exactly what you deserve.lmao, what a pathetic bunch of schoolboys, I posted my 1st post >>12945421 then further explained to you tardy midwits about the DCQE as rebuttals >>12945457 >>12945682 >>12945507 >>12945533 >>12945899. face it, you all hadn't comprehended anything about the DCQE bands so yous took it out on me and deserved to have your abuse laughed at.Did you experience me constantly butting into your lame ass discussion? NO.My respects to >>12946484
>>12946992It's more like observe the process or observe the result.
>>12945118Maybe it's a feature and not a bug
scanning these threads, one must realize most is back/forth debate is needed to unravel mysteries like, jeez "they worked out it uses photons!!!!!", "nah, really?", "yeh, they go BRRRRRR"..
>>12947080quantum eraser is the bit that fixes it back to being the top OP pic.
>>12947780>teenagersmakes sense, imagine how utterly dumbshit retard you' must be to require an anon to tell you this >>12947817!!!!!
>>12943897there is a universal secret hidden within the waveform. I firmly believe that if we were to unlock the true meaning of the waveform, we would be discovering fundamental properties of reality that would usher in new scientific and technological golden eras.>>12944773that's something we'll have to figure out, won't it? it took thousands of years to go from the early human civilization to the scientific method, so it'll probably be another few thousand years until the next jump.
>>12947780>teenagersthey troll as hidden little gay faggots using "incognito mode" >>12946160, but forget they've already tipped you off to how they do it themselves by accusing you of doing it in a previous thread >>12938442 >>12938604 >>12937079 >>12937224!!!I took the time to search "incognito"https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=incognitoretarded little turds have been using it for a while now!!he's the same tard faggot thru-out that entire thread!!>>12900569...and dumbshit stupid enough to tell us about it!!lmao, top kek!!
>>12943973if you try to detect which slit it goes through, then you see two groups, unironically
>>12947431>the DCQE does not create the 2--Band Pattern.Irrelevant.>PBS Space Time [...] which is a reliable source, he's way better qualified than youHahahahahaha>You posted 1 exampleI'm serious Anon. It's not an insult. Compare your posts to everyone else's and tell me what's different. I assure you I'm being completely honest here. It's not an insult.>you all hadn't comprehended anything about the DCQE bandsI literally did the experiment with a few colleagues in the beginning of 2020. We wanted to see how easy it was to recreate it.>Did you experience me constantly butting into your lame ass discussion?Yes. And insulting everyone.>My respects to >>12946484Samefag. >>12948131Ohhhh you're the guy taking the / vs ÷ thread Super serious. That was really funny. I really thought you were just trolling there.
>>12943897I don't understand this new picture.The top happens 100% of the time when the slits are incredibly close to each other (even real ppl can simulate this with about $5) and the bottom is just what happens when the slits are far apart while the light shines on it farther away.
>>12948818|>irrelevant.you said >>12947080>simple quantum eraser, which creates the pattern on the bottom of the OP pic.you were wrong, you said a stupid thing & now its "irrelevant"covering up your own incompetence with NOOOOO!!!! iTS IRRELEVANT!!!cope & seethe simpleton.>I literally did the experiment with a few colleagues in the beginning of 2020. We wanted to see how easy it was to recreate it.this is rubbish you just said a completely stupid false thing.& recovered with "irrelevant"..clearly you're lying, you have no colleagues, you have no academic standing at all, you didn't do it, cause your an idiot whom doesn't even know how it works.you're an idiot teen who fucked around with a laser pointer, nothing more.>>12948818You have no qualifications, you're a nobody.the PBS dude is famous, you're a nobody.also this >>12946484, isn't me.would you like a screenshot as proof? or have you utterly validated that as being credible evidence because you are the incognito mode tard!!!congrats.>Ohhhh you're the guy taking the / vs ÷ thread Super serious.the spazz taking that thread super serious is the self confessed faggot getting treatment for his mental illness and learning to deal with his homo impulses.This clearly obvious from the pic, the pic is clear.He's the take meds meme troll, I don't post take your meds memes.Its obviously you... you're the take meds troll in this thread and use incognito mode to hide.You're retarded teen whom doesn't know basic facts about DCQE, so you talk shit..
>>12949083>you were wrongIt's not wrong. It's exactly what's happening and other Anon posted videos for you to see that this is indeed true.>the PBS dude is famousSo is Logan Paul. PBS is pop-sci, and they've been caught being wrong before. Although I do agree they're of the less retarded variety.>would you like a screenshot as proof? I don't need proof for things I already know.>the spazz taking that thread super seriousIs clearly you, otherwise you wouldn't have saved that screenshot to prove whatever point you're trying to make.Anon, dead serious. You need help. Your writing is 100% schizotypical.
>>12943897Hey, don't know anything about light, but just chiming in to say that your meme would have greater dramatic effect if the top and bottom were switched around. We read the top first, so the bottom should be the more emotionally intense image. Someone looking at you as the final image is more dramatic, and thus funnier and more captivating.
>>12949158Agree with this, but the image is old. Not OP's.
>>12949145>It's not wrong. It's exactly what's happening and other Anon posted videos for you to see that this is indeed true.the DCQE does not produce the lower OP pic.if you produced the lower OP pic, then that isn't the DCQE.you did your own shit & mislabeled DCQE and didn't even know the difference.>So is Logan Paul. PBS is pop-sci, and they've been caught being wrong before. Although I do agree they're of the less retarded variety.ok, this is comedy gold...you've mistaken this as Logon Paul, PBS newshourhttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/tag/logan-paul/the video here >>12945421https://youtu.be/8ORLN_KwAgs?t=260 is Matt O'Dowd from PBS Space Time, he's an Astrophysicist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_O%27Dowd_(astrophysicist)>Is clearly you, otherwise you wouldn't have saved that screenshot to prove whatever point you're trying to make.I am clearly identified in that thread as (You).that thread identifies a mentally ill sexually disturbed youth whom uses incognito mode to troll people..It identifies you.It proves the schizzo in that thread is you, because you had to attack this >>12948131 as a need to defend yourself.congrats on ousting yourself.Clearly you read PBS and only new about some newshour guy thats irrelevant.PBS Space Time hosted by Matt O'Dowd is well educated and considered somebody in the field whereas you are a nobody.
>>12949231I can't wait for the reply to this, hahaha.
>>12949231>the DCQE does not produce the lower OP pic.I never claimed it does. What gave you the idea?>you did your own shit & mislabeled DCQE and didn't even know the difference.I never said we produced the bottom pic in the DCQE.Learn to read. I said the lower pic is a quantum eraser experiment. Not delayed-choice quantum eraser. Those are different things. You're confusing the two.>you've mistaken this as Logon Paul, PBS newshourHuh, funny. No, I meant the YouTuber. Then take PewDiePie. He's also famous. The point is, someone being famous or an astrophysicist doesn't mean the concepts he's presenting are accurate. Double Slit isn't something astrophysicists are educated about.>as a need to defend yourself.What do I need to defend myself from? Your constant insults don't phase me. They're a sign of weak minds. You tpak exactly like the schizo in that thread, so it's safe to assume it's you, given that you saved that screenshot without including your own replies about how people are wrong because you feel they are.
>>12949410Its just radiation innit
>>12949344>>the DCQE does not produce the lower OP pic.>I never claimed it does. What gave you the idea?you said this here >>12947080>We were discussing a simple quantum eraser, which creates the pattern on the bottom of the OP pic.ok...will you be using incognito mode on this one?>Learn to read. I said the lower pic is a quantum eraser experiment. Not delayed-choice quantum eraser. Those are different things. You're confusing the two The quantum eraser is what destroys the information gathered thus restoring the coherent interference pattern.."it destroys information" and restores coherence.It doesn't even matter where you use it, obtaining information (observing) is what collapses the wavefunction into either a 2-band-pattern OR decoherence-pattern.The quantum eraser is what destroys the gathered information (unobserves you) and restores the coherent interference pattern.The quantum-eraser restores the coherence, and does not collapse the wavefunction into a 2-band-pattern.You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.>Huh, funny. No, I meant the YouTuber.No, you didn't even watch that video and big-mouthed without even knowing what you were discussing.>Then take PewDiePie. He's also famous.and now dribble meaningless shit as if it is relevant..no, you felt like an idiot and made up this shit on the spot.>The point is, someone being famous or an astrophysicist doesn't mean the concepts he's presenting are accurate. Double Slit isn't something astrophysicists are educated about.WTF!! Now this is utter bullshit.You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.>What do I need to defend myself from? Your constant insults don't phase me.stop right there, you tell people take Meds and hide using incognito mode.enough has been presented to expose your method.
>>12949243>>12949415same anon?I was refraining from responding to you sooner as I felt in everyones best interest to wait until he called me a samefag, again.I was waiting bit so as to get maximum points from harnessing your input.
>>12949421>you said this here >>12947080 (You)>>We were discussing a simple quantum eraser, which creates the pattern on the bottom of the OP pic.Yes. Exactly. Where does my post mention the DCQE? The "quantum eraser experiment" isn't just the erasing part. When you get rid of the 45° angle polarization foil, you get the bottom pic. With it, the bottom. A simple double slit without any modification only produces the top part. I never claimed anything else.>you didn't even watch that videoCorrect.>without even knowing what you were discussing.Incorrect.>and now dribble meaningless shit as if it is relevantNo. You made an argument by implying "he's right because he's famous", and I mentioned a famously stupid YouTuber. Not my fault other people are named like that as well.>WTF!! Now this is utter bullshit.No, it's not. Argument from authority is a fallacy. >stop right there, you tell people take Meds and hide using incognito modeI'm not even using a browser currently. There's no incognito mode here.I'm genuinely concerned for you, Anon.
>>12949448>When you get rid of the 45° angle polarization foil, you get the bottom pic*With it, the top.
>>12949448>The "quantum eraser experiment" isn't just the erasing part. When you get rid of the 45° angle polarization foil, you get the bottom pic. With it, the bottom. A simple double slit without any modification only produces the top part. I never claimed anything else.This is not a quantum eraser.This is you fuck assing about with filters and naming it whatever you please without realizing you just called a pencil an eraser.Quantum eraser is term for whatever erases the "information" gathered, thus restoring coherence.You fucked about with filters to block something and collapsed the wavefunction which is the exact opposite of what "Quantum eraser" means.You make shit up and think the rest will go along with whatever bullshit name you give it..nope, a pencil is a pencil and an eraser is an eraser.>No. You made an argument by implying "he's right because he's famous", and I mentioned a famously stupid YouTuber. Not my fault other people are named like that as well.An astrophysicist knows shit loads about double-slit.You attacking his credibility is a joke because he is an expert on this subject and you're a seething & cope nobody. >I'm not even using a browser currently. There's no incognito mode here.>I'm genuinely concerned for you, Anon.Too late, you've already ousted yourself as the mentally ill troll with homosexual issues by attacking >>12948131, so whatever bullshit you dribble now regarding your credibility is already too late.
>>12949496>This is not a quantum eraser.Yes, it is. Just like the double slit isn't only the double slit, but also the additional screen and particle source. The quantum eraser isn't just the last foil. You're trying to save face here because you severely misunderstood what we were talking about. Now you derailed the whole thread.>You attacking his credibilityI never did that. I'm saying your argument is complete bullshit.>homosexual issues by attacking >>12948131How did I "attack" that post? How would that have made me homosexual? Again, you really need to find help. Please reach out to friends and family. It's disheartening to see you like this.
>>12949520>Yes, it is. Just like the double slit isn't only the double slit, but also the additional screen and particle source. The quantum eraser isn't just the last foil. You're trying to save face here because you severely misunderstood what we were talking about. Now you derailed the whole thread.YOU made a new car and showed it to everyone saying "it flies"..everyone said "thats an aircraft"you say "no its a car and it flies, even has a 45° angle on it, which cars all have"they ask "does it drive on the road?"you say "no, but it looks like a car and has a 45° angle on it, which cars all have"they all look at you and say "no, thats not a car, it doesn't drive on the ride, that is a plane and flies in the air"The utter idiocy of you attempting to state you invented a quantum-eraser that does not destroy the information observed to restore coherence, and instead collapses the wavefunction... and still continue to call that a quantum-eraser is how mentally challenged you are.You are attention-whore seeking some kind of acknowledgement for creating a quantum-eraser that isn't a quantum-eraser, then double-down even harder to save your reputation on this basket-weaving thread.
>>12949581That analogy is really fucking idiotic.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment>The quantum eraser experiment is a variation of Thomas Young's classic double-slit experiment. It establishes that when action is taken to determine which of 2 slits a photon has passed through, the photon cannot interfere with itself. When a stream of photons is marked in this way, then the interference fringes characteristic of the Young experiment will not be seen. The experiment also creates situations in which a photon that has been "marked" to reveal through which slit it has passed can later be "unmarked." A photon that has been "marked" cannot interfere with itself and will not produce fringe patterns, but a photon that has been "marked" and then "unmarked" will interfere with itself and produce the fringes characteristic of Young's experiment.So will you apologize? Eagerly awaiting your response.
>>12949607>>The quantum eraser experiment is a variation of Thomas Young's classic double-slit experiment.QE is a bit that adds on to the back-end of the double-slityou can't do the quantum-erasor experiment without 1st having them "marked">It establishes that when action is taken to determine which of 2 slits a photon has passed through, the photon cannot interfere with itself. If you observe which slit it goes thru, then wavefunction collapses.derrrrrrrrrrr....(this is not the Quantum-eraser part of the experiment)you can not use a Quantum-eraser without first having double-slits for it to pass thru and a detector for you to "mark" it.>When a stream of photons is marked in this way,now traveling as particles, not waves..>then the interference fringes characteristic of the Young experiment will not be seen. you can't see the interference pattern...derrrrrr, you see the 2-band-pattern
>>12949607 >>12949756PART 2/2>The experiment also creates situations in which a photon that has been "marked" to reveal through which slit it has passedso, particles have already been gone thru the double-slit and been observed to see which slit it went thru so it is now "marked"... meaning they have already wavefunction collapsed and traveling as a particle, not wave>can later be "unmarked.this unmarking is what the quantum eraser does.. its scrambling the information gathered.>" A photon that has been "marked" cannot interfere with itself and will not produce fringe patterns,derrrrrrrrr... its travels as a particles, not a wave...>but a photon that has been "marked" and then "unmarked"FINALLY UP TO WHERE THE QUANTUM-ERASER IS USED...yes, this is what the quantum-eraser does... its "unmarks" the particle by wiping the information about which slit it went thru.we no longer know if it went thru slit A or slit B..>will interfere with itself and produce the fringes characteristic of Young's experimentyes, the quantum-eraser is what is used to get the photon to then be a wave again, thus interfering with itself and resulting in the interference pattern...So you previously busted a blood vessel about DCQE >>12949344 insisting take away the Delayed choice whats in front of the quantum-eraser.YOU INSISTED JUST THE QUANTUM-ERASER BIT, NOT WHAT GOES BEFORE IT...NOW, you're adding the double-slit bit and making out like the double-slit is the Quantum-eraser?Are you rambling incoherently..This article shows the double-slit and detector "marks" the photon...then the Quantum-eraser "unmarks" the photon.
>>12949756>you can't do the quantum-erasor experiment without 1st having them "marked"That is literally a part of the experiment. As I said. And as the quote says.>restYou don't need to repeat the quote. I can read.>insisting take away the Delayed choice No, you insisted on adding it without any reason to do so. You only need the quantum eraser to produce the OP pic.>>12949763>you're adding the double-slit bit and making out like the double-slit is the Quantum-eraser?No. I always said the quantum eraser is the double slit plus the polarization filters. As confirmed by any source you'll find on the net. Nobody is calling a single polarization filter a quantum eraser. Feel free to post a source that says otherwise.>This article showsthat you are wrong, and I used the terminology correctly all along. So, will you apologize for being a needlessly pedantic asshole about things you are wrong about?
>>12949826Just in case you didn't understand my posts >>12949756 >>12949763your wiki article here >>12949607 states:>Quantum_eraser_experimentIt says QE-experiment NOT the QE-itself.Do you not understand the difference between Quantum-eraser & Quantum-eraser experiment?Do you not understand the difference between Quantum-eraser & Quantum-eraser experiment?In order to use the Quantum-Eraser, you will first need "marked" photons that have wavefunction collapsed and are therefore particles...this >>12949607 QE-experiment needs: Double-slit Photon-Detector Quantum-eraserits a shopping list of what you need to perform the QE-experiment.without these additional component  , you can not perform the QE-experiment.the QE is part , we know the parts   are separate items because these can be removed from this test-rig and used elsewhere..for example these parts   are also used on the DCQE-experiment.ALSO: the double-slit with photon detector is what "marks" the photons thus collapsing their wavefunction..The Quantum-Eraser is what "unmarks" them thus restoring their coherence.Do you not understand the difference between "Double-slit", "Photon-Detector" and "Quantum-Eraser"??Does your brain overload?The QE does not collapse the wavefunction, it restores it.Attempting to use this type of idiocy is hilarious!!!!!!this anon >>12949826 thinks paper is also a pen, I can not use paper without the pen..Therefore the Paper+Pen together shall be called "PAPER"......
>>12949916>It says QE-experiment NOT the QE-itselfI explained that I meant the experiment before. It is clear from the context that I wasn't talking about a single polarization filter, and you didn't really think I was talking about a single polarization filter, otherwise Zou wouldn't have spazzed out posting those walls of repeating schizo garbage. >1] Double-slit> Photon-Detector> Quantum-eraserAnd a source. Yes. Everything of which I mentioned. >the double-slit with photon detector is what "marks" the photonsAnd that photon detector is...? >collapsing their wavefunction..>collapsingTheres a reason physicists worth their salt shun that word. Do you know the reason?Can you explain what a quantum eraser is? Where can I buy one?
>>12949932>I explained that I meant the experiment before. It is clear from the context that I wasn't talking about a single polarization filter, and you didn't really think I was talking about a single polarization filter, otherwise Zou wouldn't have spazzed out posting those walls of repeating schizo garbage.you said exact words >>12947080>We were discussing a simple quantum eraser, which creates the pattern on the bottom of the OP pic.you stated it was a "simple quantum eraser", which is what causes the 2-band-pattern.so you're clearly desperate to win by bullshitting your way thru..you said what you said, I don't give a shit about what rubbish you now bullshit.you said what you said. ALL this is you attempting to every which way to win a stupid argument where your words stated "Quantum eraser" causes the double-slit pattern.. NOPE, that is not the bit that causes it...so instead of stating... NO, it isn't, but a Quantum-eraser will be a part of the set up we use to have fun with.. sure it won't itself be causing the 2-band-pattern, but it will be a part of our fun toy rig.simple as... but insteadyou carry on like a fucking schizo retard..WELL DONEI don't give two shits were you buy your supplies.fuck off
So what's the metaphysical explanation for the observer effect? Why are particles allowed to be a wave until they are interacted with and then they suddenly act like particles?Even if it's not the meme "lol consciousness effects reality" it's still INCREDIBLY spooky that this behavior happens.
>>12945029Nope, It's not a particle.That's just film grains not being exposed at the same rate.
>>12950517>It's not a particle.I thought the photoelectric effect was the main citing for when proving light is also a particle?did I remember this wrong?
>>12950593You're right. See >>12945379
>>12950043>you stated it was a "simple quantum eraser", which is what causes the 2-band-pattern.Yes and that's correct.>desperate to winWin what?>simple as... but insteadYou could have said "you mean the quantum eraser experiment, right?" instead of spazzing out and posting this schizo walls of texts and babbling about the DCQE and insulting everyone involved. But no.>I don't give two shits were you buy your supplies.I'm asking you where I can get a qua tum eraser? What and where do I buy it? Anon, you are deeply in trouble. I'm not doing this to spite you. Seek help. You really need it.
>>12950893I don't give two shits where you get your parts from.>You could have said "you mean the quantum eraser experiment, right?" instead of spazzing out and posting this schizo walls of texts and babbling about the DCQE and insulting everyone involved. But no.see, this is your mental problem; you miscommunicated yet place 100 of the responsibility on others to fix it, its your mistake so you fix it faggot. take your head out of your ass and realize thats not how the world works.like I did say earlier.this thread is a public forum.I don't need your permission to enter and post.originally I independently posted that DCQE experiment reveals that if you "mark" the photons then it doesn't cause full waveform collapse where the photons travel exclusively as particles... instead the two entangled photons still travel as out of phase waves and the screen pattern is out of phase irregular pattern.. and clearly not a 2 band pattern.from that point forward you masturbated your children's toy quantum eraser and continually hounded me to give a fuck iota about whatever the fuck you're jerking off about in this thread..My posts where originally geared to supposing its possible to see which slot the photon went thru and keep a full interference pattern via adjusting the travel path of both entangled photons so as to keep them coherent..but this wasn't on your agenda, you continued to beat your chest insisting that "your exact words" are ok by you therefore I should kiss your ass..you bore me, your a retarded loser player with a laser pointer and think the whole world pays attention..your retarded faggot with mental problem.go play with laser pen, loser.fuck off.
>>12950971>your mistakeI never made a mistake and even posted a source showing I was right. >originally I independently posted that DCQE experimentIs inconsistent with>and clearly not a 2 band pattern.You're making zero sense.>you continued to beat your chest insisting that "your exact words" are ok by you therefore I should kiss your ass..Where did I say that?>I don't give two shits where you get your parts from.I never told you where I got my parts from. You're insisting in calling a polarization filter a quantum eraser, which is blatant bullshit. It's a part of a quantum eraser, and only makes sense in that context to be used as such. This is clearly implied in the word itself. >go play with laser penSeeing you having a mental breakdown over literally nothing is much more entertaining atm. You're delusional, and you obviously have a schizoid personality disorder. I'm dead serious. You need to seek help.
>>12951732fark me, just listen to yourself you humungus faggot..this is you "look at me everyone, look at this absolutely lame ass kiddies project I'm masturbating about all over this thread"...jeez, you're gonna have a laser line light show on your wall so you can masturbate by disco!!!You are a stupid, boring faggot who can't even gather his parts, nor fabricate anything & heads off to the kit store and says "1 please"...don't you have a fucking workshop with every bit and piece of shit you've gathered over 20 years of fucking around with stuff more advanced than a quantum eraser? don't you already have all those bits as left overs and in storage drawers units in your workshop?fark me, go right ahead and seize control of this thread and lead a massive forward movement of pansy little virgin teenagers fucking around with childrens toys..you are the most boring useless going nowhere achieving nothing pansy faggot on /sci/..WELL DONEfuck off.
>>12948044>there is a universal secret hidden within the waveform.Interesting. Do you have anywhere I can learn more about this?
>>12951799>who can't even gather his parts,Anon, I'm asking you where I can buy a quantum eraser as you have defined it against the common definition. Because searching turns up nothing. Why are you seething so hard about that simple question?>you are the most boringYet you keep replying.Anon, I'm deeply worried about you. Everything said aside, your writing style is 100% identical to schizotypical writing patterns. I'm dead serious. Please reach out to friends and family. You need help.
>>12943897It is. Now what you gonna do about it?
>>12953067you're an OCD spazz trying to look like a hero and hide your ineptitude cause you're incompetent at making things.*same anon
>>12953067look over the assembly diagrams of what you want to build, then go into your workshop and grab what parts you already have and build one yourself. If you're missing bits then go buy those individual bits and put it together yourself.You don't need mommy to do it for you, do you?
>>12953067so whats the most complex thing you've made?made, not bought?have you ever designed anything?do you know what a parts list is?do you know what a BOM is?are you restricted to purchasing kits?serious question*same anon
>>12953067have you decided what you want to build?have you drawn it out, yet?have you made a parts list?ok, now obviously you've done a lot of this stuff before, right?so its only the Quantum Eraser bits of your build project that you don't have, right?is this correct?this isn't the first time you've fucked around with double-slick stuff, is it?you're not a newbie, are you?so its "just" the Quantum Eraser bits you need?you have a screen, already?you have a suitable mounting base, right?you have a suitable power supply, right?you have a suitable laser module, right?you have some observation screens, right?you have some convex lenses lying around, right?you have some beamsplitters lying around, right?you have some polarizing film lying around, right?you're not newbie teenager masturbating to hentai in mommies basement, right?you have "stuff", right?what do you already have?have you already ticked these items of your BOM?have you made a shopping list of what you don't have?Do you need me to hold your hand for you while we go searching together for the parts you lack?Do you need me to suck your dick during this whole process?*same anon
>>12953232>>12953142I need a quantum eraser. Where can I buy one? That's all I'm asking for. It's a simple question, and you exactly defined what it is. So you must know. >>12953118No.>>12953127No.
>>12953238>I need a quantum eraser. Where can I buy one?so you have everything else?you only need those "bits" itemized as part of the quantum eraser part of your project build?you don't need a mounting base, you already have one?you don't need a power supply, you already have one?you don't need a laser, you already have one?you don't need observation screen, you already have one?you're not being clear, anon.do you know what parts of your project build do the quantum eraser job?you're not being a spazzoid, are you?have you listed out the individual components that make up the quantum eraser part of your project build?list out exactly what parts you need and I'll provide you a part number where you can buy them.cause you don't need everything in your project build, do you?you're not a fucking idiot playing games, are you?post the list of bits of the quantum eraser you don't have and I'll source those parts for you.you do understand what parts in your project build are the quantum eraser, right?you're not just masturbating in moms basement, right?you're not a fucking imbecile who only buys kits because item lists explode your brain, right?you're autistic, are you?
>>12953292>you're not being clear, anon.I am perfectly clear. I need a quantum eraser. Where can I get one? Share a link, please.>listed out the individual components that make up the quantum eraser part of your projectWhat do you mean? You said the quantum eraser is the thing that "uncollapses" the wave function. I need that.
>>12953292>you don't need a laser, you already have one?yeah i probably have one in my mouse or something, but i don't want to take it apartwhere can I buy 1 entire quantum eraser kit? I want to see some spooky action right here on my desk.
>>12953332>>I need a quantum eraser. Where can I buy one?You do know the difference between: Quantum Eraser Quantum Eraser experiment Quantum Eraser demonstration kitDo you understand that these are 3 different nouns?Your not being a deliberately contentious retard, are you?Does your brain explode with finer detail?
>>12953118>>12953127>>12953142>>12953232>>12953292O B S E S S E DBSESSED
>>12953349>where can I buy 1 entire quantum eraser kit?now this sounds like a reasonable question.I'd recommendhttps://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=6957have fun, anon.
>>12953356obsessed is some fuckhead who doesn't understand the difference between an experimenta parta kit
>>12953350Anon, again, I need the quantum eraser. You say that's a single thing. Where can I buy it? It's a simple question. Or is it maybe that you were wrong and contort yourself to not having to admit that you acted like a complete retard?
>>12953383>Anon, again, I need the quantum eraser.>You say that's a single thing. >Where can I buy it?If you can't find a place that sells just the quantum eraser without requiring you to also purchase the entire quantum eraser demonstration kit, then you're out of luck.unfortunately it seems you're too retarded to list out those seperate items that make up specifically the "quantum eraser"...If you weren't such an imbecile, then you could of saved yourself some money by not needing to purchase the "entire" quantum eraser demonstration kit.you're out of luck.
Hi. I don't know anything about science, I'm quite the simpleton too. But I saw this thread on 4chan mainpage and was intrigued. Is there something like a matrix like thing, where things don't load until you look at them? Like some sort of LOD system irl? Please explain me in simple words.
>>12953409Anon, you don't get what this is about. I did exactly that. But that schizo says>hurrrr no that's not the eraser the eraser is just the last part that undoes the wave function collapse which is why he's posting this schizo walls of garbage texts the whole time. Also it triggered him that i said he didn't add anything to the original discussion, which he entered calling everyone names and idiots and imbeciles and whatnot.
>>12953421>Is there something like a matrix like thing, where things don't load until you look at them? Like some sort of LOD system irl?No.
>>12953430that would have been so coollike if the tree in the forest no one hear would just make no sound to save ram or something
>>12953373No you're obviously obsessed schizo. And just proved it lol. Take your meds.
>>12953425>>hurrrr no that's not the eraser the eraser is just the last part that undoes the wave function collapsethis is correct.you will find a quantum eraser within the quantum eraser demonstration kit >>12953360.yes, this may be difficult for you to understand what words mean >>12953350 but keeping trying.If you read lots more books and stop being a mouthy cunt, then you might even get laid one day.but don't hold your breath.
>>12953437Well, some people argue we could live in a simulation where such a thing would have to be implemented to save resources, but evidence suggests we're not living in a simulation. Don't let that discourage you from thinking about such an idea or its implications though. It's still interesting to ponder.
>>12953443lmao, look at this fuckwit who can't even use proper english.NOOOOOO!!!! this >>12953350 IS WRONG!!! I TELLS YOU!!! WRONG!!...I REWRITE ALL GRAMMAR, I TELLS YOU, I REWRITE!!!
>>12953447>you will find a quantum eraser within the quantum eraser demonstration kitSo you're saying that part only erases quantum information in the _context of that experiment_? Like I initially said it was, to which you went completely nuts! So that when anyone mentions a quantum eraser, it's always in the context of that experiment? So I was right all along?
>>12953456>So you're saying that part only erases quantum information in the _context of that experiment_? Like I initially said it was, to which you went completely nuts!You originally said >>12947080 the quantum eraser is the bit that causes the 2-band-pattern.The quantum eraser part does not cause the 2-band-pattern.erasing quantum information does not cause the 2-band-pattern.Do you not understand how you are wrong?
>>12953454lmao Take them. You have an episode right now lol.Why does this place attract so many schizos and autists?
>>12953477>you should learn english>you posts are retardoof
>>12953468>the quantum eraser is the bit that causes the 2-band-pattern.>bit That's not in that post. According to you, the eraser is a single part of the quantum eraser experiment. The last polarization filter. If, as you claim, I meant only the last filter in that post, how would it create any pattern at all? My post only makes sense when the "quantum eraser" in there is used as a shorter term for the quantum eraser experiment, as is customary. You're making zero sense. Anon, this sort of clingy behavior, pedantic misunderstanding and sticking to it, and your writing style reek of mental problems. Really, I'm dead serious and can't stress this enough. You need to seek hell. Please, Anon.
>>12953469you should learn english before posting.your posts are retarded and you speak nonsense about quantum erasers produce 2-band-patterns.
>>12953484Hahahahahaha let me help you.You should learn proper English before posting.Your posts are retarded, and you speak nonsensical about quantum erasers producing 2-band-patterns.
>>12953483you understood the discussion the entire way thru and now you attempt to coverup your retarded belief that quantum erasers produce a 2-band-pattern, and only now understand that the quantum-erasers restore wavefunction.you had no idea what bits in the project build did what.now you try hard to save face.
>>12953484>criticizing anyone's English with that grammar and orthography Oh boi. Not me, btw.
>>12953492>Your posts are retarded, and you speak nonsensical about quantum erasers producing 2-band-patterns.now you attempt to coverup your retarded belief that quantum erasers produce a 2-band-pattern, and only now understand that the quantum-erasers restore wavefunction.you had no idea what bits in the project build did what.now you try hard to save face.
>>12953494No. From the get go, I said they produce both. I said you need a quantum eraser to produce the 2-Band pattern, but I never said it ONLY produces those. It is very clear from context what I meant to anyone but you. Again, you could have said >Anon, do you mean the quantum eraser experiment? Because I personally only call a skngle bit of that experiment the quantum eraser. Instead, you're having a multi-day mental breakdown. Anon, I'm deeply worried about you, and I mean this. Please reach out to family and friends. Just make sure they all feel like you're alright. >>12953501Not me. Stop lashing out to other people about things you very obviously don't know shit about.
>>12953481 >>12953496so you finally won a point and need to celebrate wildly because you desperately need every point you can get.Yayyyyy!!!
>>12953491yeh, nah, fuck off.
>>12953514nah, this is bullshit... you had no idea what the fuck any of it was.your only way to understand any of it was a "magic box"..magic box go brrrrrrrrr...
>>12953517>won a pointWhat do you mean? I'm only one of those guys and I merely mocked you for pointing out someone's English (what is even wrong with that post?) while being bad at it yourself.>>12953532>you had no idea what the fuck any of it was.I literally explained every part. Several times actually, and I even posted a source showing I'm right. All you got is autistic screeching.>your only way to understand any of it was a "magic box"Where did I say that?
>>12953550>>won a pointYayyyyyyyyyy!!!!!>literally explained every part.you learnt as you went along in order to understand why you were wrong, then pokerfaced!!>where do i buy "magic-box" anon>I need to buy entire "magic-box" anon>I don't understand parts anon>I can't break discussion down further anonmagic box go brrrrrrrrr...
>>12953570>you learnt as you went alongNo, I was in this thread before you derailed it. This is your first post here: >>12945421, and you out of nowhere mention the DCQE, which is completely irrelevant to both the thread and what was discussed before. When people pointed that out, you instantly went to insulting all of them instead of trying to argue. Anon, really, this is highly schizotypical. Please promise me you'll reach out to see if you're fine. Just go and ask. Give your mom a call. Ask her if she noticed any changes in you that worry her.
>>12953570>>12953601Oh and>>where do i buy "magic-box" anon>>I need to buy entire "magic-box" anon>>I don't understand parts anon>>I can't break discussion down further anonWho are you quoting? I certainly said neither of those things and clearly already explained everything before, providing a source on top. Why are you putting words in my mouth I never spoke?
>>12953601>I have autism>too much going on at once>I see a hair out of place>my brain is imploding>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!see >>12950971you're the pinnacle of boring center of attention seeking whores.Did you experience me constantly butting into your lame ass discussion? NO.
>>12953618>>I have autism>>too much going on at once>>I see a hair out of place>>my brain is imploding>>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!Are you quoting yourself? I mean, it's blatantly obvious you have at least some mild autism, but speaking of yourself in quotes is still weird. >you're the pinnacle of boring center of attention seeking whores.Why do you keep replying then? Just apologize for being a clueless cunt and leave this thread as a man instead of trying to fool yourself into believing your posts here had any merit. You're not fooling anyone else. >Did you experience me constantly butting into your lame ass discussion[s]?YES.
>>12953607you only know magic boxyou have no idea what is whatquantum erasers don't cause 2-band-patterns, anon.if you fuck around with shit and get a 2-band-pattern then thats not a quantum eraser, anon.your understanding is magic-box....a pen is not an eraser, anon.a pen is a pen & an eraser is an eraser, anon.you genuinely didn't know this and bust all hell to reinforce but my pen is an eraser...magic box go brrrrrrrrrrrrr.....>>12953628>Why do you keep replying then?sorry, that obviously your job.its written in the /sci/ rulesI'll need a source on that attention seeking whore.>YES.prove it
>>12953646No, I already explained that before. I never said quantum erasers ONLY produce that pattern. It was also very clear, for everyone who can read, that in that context the experiment was discussed, and not a single filter. Anon, this behavior is absolutely typical of someone having a schizoid episode. Please, promise me you'll reach out to people. They will help. Promised. >>YES.>prove itAt least you five first posts in this thread.
>>12953668>I never said quantum erasers ONLY produce that patternquantum erasers NEVER produce 2-band-pattern, anon.if you fuck around with shit and get a 2-band-pattern then its no longer a quantum eraser, anon.I have stated this simple fact all along, anon.yet you still don't state it, anon.every post linking to this is you carrying on incoherent rants, anon.you still use the word "ONLY" to save face, anon.>>12953668>At least you five first posts in this thread.my first post was >>12945421 which linked to >>12943951..I have nothing to do with any posts above my first post except link to >>12943951..I have no other interactions with posts above my 1st post.I don't know what your babbling about, anon.you're just making shit up again, again.
>>12953707>quantum erasers NEVER produce 2-band-pattern, anonFor the fifth or so time, it is very clear from context that the experiment was meant, and that experiment produces both situations from OP's pic. When will you apologize and accept you made a mistake? Leave this board like a man.>I have no other interactions with posts above my 1st post.Yes, but with posts after that where you lash out at people without any reason.Anon, did you already talk to a doctor? What did he tell you?
>>12953742For the fifth or so time, a quantum eraser does not produce 2-band-patterns, anon.if you fuck around with shit and get a 2-band-pattern then it is no longer a quantum eraser, anon.this simple truth has been explained to you >>12949581, anon.but you keep doubling down on autism, anon.a quantum eraser does not produce 2-band-patterns, anon.a quantum eraser restores wavefunction, anon.if it can now fly in the sky & not drive on the road then its an airplane and no longer a car, anon.you only understand magic box, anon.anything beyond your simpleton kiddie magic box level is beyond you, anon.>magic box go brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!you can't understand this simple statement, anon.you only have mental problems and keep doubling down, anon.>Yes, but with posts after that where you lash out at people without any reason.you mean, responding to replies, anon?thats what a forum is, anon.so you now realize I haven't initiated further contact, anon?so you realize you're full of shit, anon?you now think you own this board and make the rules, anon?dilate, anon.
>>12953793>For the fifth or so time, a quantum eraser does not produce 2-band-patterns, anon.See >>12953742>it is very clear from context that the experiment was meant, and that experiment produces both situations from OP's pic. >you mean, responding to replies, anon?Yes. As in interfering with discussions.Anon, please. It seems like you already talked to a doctor. What did he say?
>>12953793He's dead, Dave, everybody is dead, everybody is dead, Dave.
>>12953793You need more meds. Jesus christ and I thought Tooker's Helene rants were bad.
>>12943897>he thinks all of the retarded relativity and quantum mumbo jumbo is actually reallmao
>>12953793>anything beyond your simpleton kiddie magic box level is beyond you, anon.>>magic box go brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!>you can't understand this simple statement, anon.Can you make a meme image out of this?
>thread about double slit experiment>Actually this is what happens>Except really this>But this experiment falsified that, sometimes>Except hereFuck it, I give up, I'll just accept I'll never understand it
>>12953892All quantum shit is pseudoscientific gibberish
>>12953892What do you need to know? What's the current state of your understanding?If you're honestly deeply interested, I highly recommend just doing the experiment on your own. You only need a laserpointer, a hair or some cardboard with two thin slots close to each other, and polarization foil.
>>12953879>>12953857the entire world doesn't care about your little rubber band toy video, anon.physics doesn't redefine what things mean based on your lacky bands holding shit together, anon.if you're getting a 2-band-pattern then what produced it isn't a quantum eraser, anon.airplanes don't drive on the road, anon.do you think your lacky band and duct tape fucking about in moms basement changes the laws of of physics, anon?you understand perfectly well the truth of my definition, anon.if you modify a thing to not restore wavefunction, then it is no longer a quantum eraser, anon.you keep buckling down on OCD, anon.is your brain exploding yet, anon?do you need more OCD triggers, anon?>>12953864 >>12953884"The meme is dead, Dave"
>>12953908>your little rubber band toy videoWhat?>physics doesn't redefine what things meanActually, it does. But good point! Since I provided a source that supports my narrative, you should apologize for being a needlessly pedantic cunt and accept that "were talking about a simple quantum eraser" does not mean we're talking about a polarization filter.>you understand perfectly well the truth of my definition, anon.Google "quantum eraser" and show me how it doesn't bring up the experiment, but only the filter in the end.Also please do this:>>12953884
>>12953956But its already defined with a purpose, anon.you fucking around with one of them and changing what its doing doesn't change its defined purpose, anon.are you having problems with words >>12953350 again, anon? are you further doubling down on OCD, anon?is your head exploding yet, anon?do you need more OCD triggers, anon?
>>12954016That's not a Google result, Anon.
>>12954037>shows just enough to be vague enough to?????>A 'quantum eraser' that can prevent or allow absorption of an entangled....oooo, this looks enticing.I've no idea what that design is, has a new design come along so now every single other one is "this one" in spite of "this one" being the only one to exist so far?is it a new kit for sale?not exactly specific, that doesn't state it causes a 2-band-pattern.the only thing for certain is this one is NOT the one you own, nor your friend has!!!link to the article, its your claim so you go to the effort.If you make a car that drives on the road and flys in the air, then every other car in the world doesn't automatically do that too.if its a special-design special case, then this design will be called an "airplane car".you feeling the OCD head explosion yet, anon?you going to double down again, anon?
>>12954116>the only thing for certain is this one is NOT the one you own, nor your friend has!!!What the fuck are you talking about? I'm saying "quantum eraser" is colloquially used as meaning the whole experiment, contrary to what you claim. The results prove that. When will you apologize and admit you were wrong, like a man, instead of endless bitching and screeching and insulting?Anon, you're really consistent in that behavior, please reach out to friends and family, please promise me you'll do that, okay?
>>12954145>the whole experimentso now we're now switching back to colloquial bum-cracks, anon?do you not understand what nouns are >>12953350, anon?do you not know what bit quantum eraser does by definition >>12954016, anon?do you need more OCD trigger, anon?
>>12954167>so now we're now switching back to colloquialNo, that was always the point. I specifically said so in each post.So, you gonna apologize like a man, or keep screeching like a little mouse being crushed by the weight of the guilt and misconduct on her back?Anon, please can you promise me to reach out?
>>12954189>No, that was always the point. I specifically said so in each post.yeh, I'm not switching from "reality" just to start swimming in your OCD bum-crack, anon.are you a duct-tape McGiver homie fanboi, aon?do you not understand what nouns are >>12953350, anon?do you not know what bit quantum eraser does by definition >>12954016, anon?do you need more OCD trigger, anon?
>>12954199>yeh, I'm not switching from "reality"Me neither. I frankly and directly told you that it was meant as a shorthand for the full experiment and that this is very obvious from context.So, are you man or mouse?But please, Anon, promise me you'll do it, okay?
>>12954231if the wavefunction collapses and you get a 2-band-pattern then it wasn't caused by a quantum eraser, anon?quantum eraser reinstates wavefunction, anon.don't you understand what words really mean, anon?is your entire life just a farce, anon?you didn't understand any of it, anonyou thought it was all a magic box, anonyou thought magic box go brrrrrrrrrrrr, anon.is your head going to explode, anon?is your OCD giving you problems, anon?are you going to double down on OCD, anon?
>>12954280If you take away the last filter of a quantum eraser (we've established that this only makes sense in the context of the full experiment, right?), it will produce that pattern. I never claimed anything else. >don't you understand what words really mean, anon?I asked this before, and I'll ask again because you didn't answer:What does "collapsing a wavefunction" mean? Why do you think professional physicists shun that word?Anon, posting these weird accusations is schizotypical, I'm not saying this to spite you. Please, promise me you'll reach out. Okay?
>>12954303I'm not debating you, anon.I'm only responding to the single core contention that exists in this thread & is soley responsible for your OCD problem.you've already told me to fuck off out of this thread, so you are no longer anything beyond your original OCD mental illness.you refuse to acknowledge what nouns >>12953350 and definitions >>12954016 are.you are an mentally ill center stage circus tent ring master attention seeking whore.I'm not interested in listening more about your entertainment look at me carry on.>>I have autism>>too much going on at once>>I see a hair out of place>>my brain is imploding>>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!>>where do i buy "magic-box" anon>>I need to buy entire "magic-box" anon>>I don't understand parts anon>>I can't break discussion down further anondo you not understand what nouns are >>12953350, anon?do you not know what bit quantum eraser does by definition >>12954016, anon?do you need more OCD trigger, anon?
>>12954340>I'm not debating you, anon.I know. You're just spewing nonsensical walls of text.>you've already told me to fuck off out of this threadNo, I didn't.>you refuse to acknowledge what nouns >>12953350 and definitions >>12954016 are.I don't. On the contrary, I originally brought them up and posted a source. You somehow now think that it was you who brought it up. Funny.So, man or mouse?In either case, please answer. Will you promise me to check with friends and family? Please.
>>12943897Whoa, I think I just had an epiphany. Someone please let me know if I'm right or wrong.In university, I was always taught that the photons were "observed", and this vaguely-defined "observation" is what cause the interference pattern to disappear.But would it be more correct to say the beams were FILTERED (e.g. polarizing filter used)? We know the state of the photons because we actively filtered them, no? We actively contrived the experiment so that interference couldn't occur, correct? Or am I wrong?I was just never satisfied with the ill-defined "observation" explanation. Is it more accurate to say we have a definite, determinant state (i.e. we already have knowledge of the wave function before any measurement had occured on the back screen)?
>>12954340All that garbage and calling others autistic is pure comedy gold lol. Bless this thread.
>>12954372your an idiot who doesn't know what words mean, then all psycho nasty cunt troll when others don't follow the same definitions you do.all these words already have meanings, anon.your hardcore stance is OCD and nothing more, anon.your worldview is to never be wrong or your head will explode, anon.is your head exploding, anon?do you need more OCD trigger, anon?
>>12954390>your an idiotlol>who doesn't know what words meanI demonstrated knowledge of everything mentioned here before you showed up already, then again, with an accompanying source. You still can't grasp colloquial terms and that people don't speak like a dictionary. You even made that mistake yourself btw, by not referring to the DCQE as the DCQE experiment at all times. Oops.>when others don't follow the same definitions You are literally the only one.
>>12954340Keep going and hunt that little turd down; knock him off his high horse, and never mind what his boyfriends say.
>>12954404whats have meanings >>12954016, anon.you only recognize your own OCD attachment, and nothing else.you consistency is just never allowing yourself to lose an argument, anon.all you know is your own center stage attention seeking whore gamestyle.you're whole life is one big colloquial farce, anon.
>>12954415kek>>12954427>you consistencyAt least now you acknowledge I've been consistent throughout. Earlier you claimed I was changing stuff. That's progress! Nice!Now please promise, okay?And... mouse or man?
>>12954431you only see your own consistency when vital to the thread, anon.you show videos of your boyfriend playing in his mommies basement and you think it means vital importance to everyone.your heads stuck up your ass, anonyour whole life is a joke,you're a mental-case go REEEEEEEEE!!!must you keep asking more replies to my original post?are you still going, anon?are you exploding yet, anon?do you need more OCD trigger, anon?
>>12954459>you show videosWhat videos?
>>12954493how many videos have you posted or used to bang on about something in this thread?have lost track?
>>12954502so nothing about reference to a home setup, some guy demonstrating a sexy red laser line on his wall and you referring to it to carry on about how big your cock is?seriously?
>>12954512Yes.You really do think I'm literally everyone in this thread, eh? lol
>>12954520liar you don't understand what words really mean, anonis your entire life just a farce, anon?you didn't understand any of it, anonyou thought it was all a magic box, anonyou thought magic box go brrrrrrrrrrrr, anon.is your head going to explode again, anon?is your OCD giving you problems, anon?are you going to double down on OCD, anon?
>>12954520you used it as a reference whilst posting to me.I don't know who posted it, didn't care.was just guy with a red laser and filters.
>>12954529>>12954528lmao, how is that even relevant?Point is, I obviously meant the experiment, as that is what people understand under that name, and you went on a rampage because you insisted it's only a filter.
>>12954528Keen powers of observation.
>>12954562You are a liar.is your head exploding, anon?is your OCD giving you problems, anon? are you still going to double down, anon?
>>12954600kek, glad that Anon told you about incognito mode in the / vs ÷ thread, hm?Anyways, I'm out. Was fun triggering you. See you in the next thread where you're having a schizo episode.
>>12954631kek, glad that Anon told you about incognito mode in the / vs ÷ thread, hm?Anyways, I'm out. Was fun triggering you. See you in the next thread where you're having a schizo episode.
>>12954600Those guys and the last replies aren't me, in case they aren't you either. Although you seemed to calm down, I'm still worried. Can you please do me the favor of reaching out to friends and family?
>>12954663Those guys and the last replies aren't me, in case they aren't you either. Although you seemed to calm down, I'm still worried. Can you please do me the favor of reaching out to friends and family?
>>12954746No, it was me.I don't know who's trolling whom anymore.
Light isnt real.
>>12955083>>12955083Then what are you looking at baka
>be me>Make two comments telling a schizo to take his meds>Two days pass>Schizo is still schizo postingFor fucks sake man. The last time I saw this level of schizoposting it was from a fundamentalist flat earther.
>>12955131Yeah and I feel slightly responsible because I was asking questions about the experiment. Can't believe it's still going on.
>>12955131bro youre so toxic and so is everyone else in this threadobviously the guy isn't straight in the head but youre all abusing him pretty much. idk why people on 4chan have to abuse the mentally ill. RIP Terry
>>12955131That's the /sci/ effect for ya. Almost every serious thread has a schizo. I think ignoring them is best desu.
>Imagine being such a schizo you need to fake posts to seem Alpha>Imagine hammering the re-replies to the same original post cause your schizo OCD can't let anyone disagree with your word definition.>Imagine your original post already checked out on physics emulation software and spending whole thread laughing at midwits flex intellectual muscles in spite of being stagnant brainlets.priceless.
>>12950043Please take your meds dude. Having a multiple day mental breakdown on this site is not a good thing man. I'm the original dude who told you take your meds twice much earlier in the thread, two days ago. I did this because the way you presented your opinions indicated schizotypal traits. It appears I was correct. Two days later you're still seething and schizo posting. Seriously dude, just take your damn meds. Or if you aren't prescribed any yet, see a psychiatrist or a therapist (who will refer you to one).
>>12955137How am I abusing him? I'm telling him to get help. I'm legitimately concerned when I see this shit. How do you propose to help them? Ignoring them isn't much better. >>12955166I'm inclined to agree, but I also don't know. I've seen schizo threads (e.g. Nathan) where they just respond to every comment with their schizo shit. Given the volume of comments they make, they're bound to get at least one reply, and that's all it takes for the schizo to totally derail the thread. Personally it pisses me off because it seems the physics threads have more schizos than the math threads, and our threads consistently get derailed by them. Ignoring the schizo, I think, only works if everyone does it. I'm willing to contribute to ignoring them, but I'm not convinced it'll work.
samefags should be shot on sight.
>>12945379What do you mean waves can deposit energy in any way? Waves are fundamentally a continuous phenomenon. They do not deposit energy in an instantaneous and discrete fashion. If they did, the photoelectric effect wouldn’t be interesting. You could have a dirac delta wave packet, I guess, but that wouldn’t show interference, and so is obviously not what we’re talking about with a double-slit experiment
>>12955243>I think, only works if everyone does itI agree, but I guess we have to try at least.
>>12955343hes a coping MW guy
>>12955343>What do you mean waves can deposit energy in any way?This is what I mean:>Waves are fundamentally a continuous phenomenon. Meaning they can deposit energy anywhere they hit. But I read your post wrong to be honest. Nevermind.
>>12956445Hell no. Many worlds is many wrong.
>>12956451I misinterpreted and was wrong. My fault.
Incognito mode really brings out the OCD schizzos in these threads.
>>12956453No problem, fren.
>>12955172>>12956879Its the same OCD brainlet samefagging every thread on /sci/.
>>12958499>>12958584Let's not give this any more attention than it deserves.Who's gonna build that thing and post pics?
>>12943951We need a better way to measure then
>>12949344anything that is covered in pbs spacetime that isnt matts specific field of expertise is usually partially written or vetted by experts from the right field of expertise. Read the fucking credits retard.
>>12958987It's pop-sci, with all its pros and flaws. Doesn't matter who wrote it. Also get some reading comprehension. You didn't understand what I said.
>>12958987PBS Space Time is a reputable source.If OCD schizos demand academic publications then they can pay for it themselves and upload pics.
>>12960046>PBS Space Time is a reputable source.Go back.
>>12960103Your academic approval isn't recognized here.
>>12960852Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the overwhelming squeal of your own insignificance.
>>12943973>has the two grouping pattern ever actually been observed when the experiment has been conducted?No. It's a fallacy. The classical experiment predicts interference too. I actually simulated it. Pic related.
>>12961812Here's the classical system i simulated
>>12961812>>12961823how is this being simulated? if its just billiard balls, i would expect 4 groups since bouncing reflects the angle, so theres generally only 2 different angles the particle can emerge, and 2 different holes it can emerge fromi think the left-right and right-left groups just happened to overlap to look like an interference pattern. If i'm right, making random changes to the hole dimensions will usually end up with 4 groups
>>12961812Yeah I really think the two line pattern is a fallacy too. It is never observed. I'm no expert, I'm just a confused outsider but it really seems like something is fishy here.From what I read it was just a thought experiment, not an actual one. Then later people replicated the interference portion of it. No one has replicated the two line pattern.At least not in the sense you'd expect. They should be able to turn on a detector at the slit and observe the wavefunction collapse and the same beam that makes interference then switches to the two lines. Because they can't something seems off to me.Polarizers don't convince me since the waves no longer interfere because they are oriented oppositely that has nothing to do with wavefunction collapse.Like I said, I'm dumb and not trained in the area, but no explanation I've seen really satisfies me.I'd be happy to get one.
>>12962344If the photon is 'detected' it is absorbed. Therefore will make no pattern. That's why the simplest way they do this is by closing one of the slits.The particle only ever interferes with itself not other particles, so the wave pattern is from one particle at a time. Yet if they use detectors it's absorbed only at one slit, there's no particle left to make a pattern though, that is just projected.
>>12962344>pattern is a fallacy too. It is never observedThis particle/wave argument double slit experiment is done with only one photon at a time, reproducing it with a laser isn't really the same because there are always other photons to interfere & filters must be used to Jury rig a two line pattern.Look up persistence of vision.This means if only one is sent at a time then its impact will fade too soon before you see enough of the overall pattern in order to actually see the pattern.Recording a tally of impacts over time and the impact locations are all shown at once so you can see it.Doing this experiment with only one photon at a time means you can not directly see any pattern at all until it is tallied and displayed, later.
>>12962238It is being simulated as just classical billiard balls bouncing elastically. You are on the right path to getting a good technical feel for why the class school system solution is a interference pattern. But your conclusion is misleading. Feynman's thought experiment is null and void because he never really understood a classical system in this case. By showing that the both the classical and the quantum system have an interference pattern it renders any results of such an experiment null and void.
>>12961812This resembles an interference pattern better than>>12962512
>>12962526>This resembles an interference pattern better thanOne is real world and the other is a computer simulation.
>>12962512Yes there are lots like that, I know it happens when they shoot it one particle at a time. My question is why can they never get the non-interference pattern that supposedly happens.
>>12962548>My question is why can they never get the non-interference pattern that supposedly happens.Because is doesn't exist. Feynman just pulled that out of his ass. It's a straw man to highlight quantum magic. Straw men are always just a red herring and there to mislead you
>>12962548>My question is why can they never get the non-interference pattern that supposedly happens.wu?From this and your previous inline posts it seems you're alluding that the two line pattern is fake and if I look online I will not find any "genuine" examples of pics directly from experiments.My day is underway and I will be busy with errands for several hours, but upon return I will take a closer look myself to see if I can find a "genuine" example.Mass conspiracy coverup has never crossed my mind, thou if it does exist then I should be able to find one from a reputable source.Be patient and I'll take a look in a few hours.
>>12962344>It is never observedThere's literally a video in this thread and you can easily do it yourself. Goddamn /sci/ is retarded.>>12962425>the photon is 'detected' it is absorbedThat's true, but the point is that detection isn't necessary for seeing the effect. You only need to construct a situation in which it COULD be detected. That suffices to show the particle character.>>12962584No. Closing one of the slits creates a single line without interference. That's what he argued. Close one slit, get one line, close the other, get a second line, but close none - woah, interference instead of just seeing two lines.>>12962520>Feynman's thought experiment is null and void because he never really understood a classical system in this case.Wow. Talk about delusions.
>>12962593That's right, I looked at several papers and they show a non interference pattern by using ONE slit at a time. Most everything focuses on the interference pattern, and is like oh look how great it is, but nothing else ever happens, so it's not some duality thing it's just what always seems to happen. I don't think it's a conspiracy it has to be something I'm not understanding obviously.I get that even if they send one 'particle' and it interferes with itself or whatever, but there seems to be no way to get it to not interfere which is what they claim happens if they 'observe' it going through the slit.And to me it seems like anyone that has knowledge has some sort of cognitive block or something, because any time I ask they go on non stop about interference patterns.
>>12962622So are you saying if the particle was acting like a wave when it goes through a single slit there would be interference as well? So the single slit with no interference proves particle like properties? I knew I was dumb but that makes it pretty obvious. So that's why the single slit is evidence.
>>12962642The point is that what people thought were particles, like electrons, interfere like waves when both slits are opened.
>>12962648And through a single slit if they were behaving like waves they would also interfere, but they don't, so that shows the particle like property?
>>12962623wu?You've actually tried really hard and failed to find even a single example?fark!!Examples of two line patterns using lasers are worthless because these demonstration kits >>12962512>This particle/wave argument double slit experiment is done with only one photon at a time, reproducing it with a laser isn't really the same because there are always other photons to interfere & filters must be used to Jury rig a two line pattern.show you a two line pattern that was directly caused by a filter so there is no great mystery as to what causes the two line pattern in those experiments as we already know it was the filter that caused it and not any kind of "unexplained" spooky shit going on.Ok, so I'm now showered and dressed for the day and will will try to find a genuine example when I return.
>>12962690Thanks, I'm just really confused by why it's called 'wave-particle duality' is all when everything I see shows 'wave' behaviour only. The only particle part seems to be about how they emit it, but that could be explained by it just being a small 'packet'.Why's it called 'wave-particle duality' and they claim there is some particle picture when I never see this particle picture except in drawings? That's all I want to know.
>>12962654No, why would anything interfere through a single slit? There's nothing to interfere with.
>>12962690>it was the filterWell duh how else do you measure where the photon went through? It's still not explainable classically.
>>12962710I already said polarizers would cause the waves to not interfere because they are oriented in different directions. That doesn't prove they are acting like particles. That's not that convincing to me.
>>12962706I think that anon wants an actual example of one photon at a time.There should be ample examples online but I'm practically filling up my travel coffee mug to go as I type.Please take over and find an example of what that anon is after so as to dispel his misunderstanding.
>>12962716Then why does a third polarizer make them interfere again?
>>12962717That would still create the interference pattern without any measuring contraption. Are you samefagging?
>>12962750That anon is asking very specifically what he wants.He is already well aware >>12962721 quantum erasers restore the interference pattern.He is only interested in seeing a two line pattern using only one photon at a time so as to be perfectly satisfied >>12962716. I personally am not offended by his request and see no issues with providing him with exactly what he wants, as that is the purpose of these threads.Please humor him instead; if you don't have what he wants then simply state you don't have it.
>>12962716If stuff that polarizes the photon are too fake for you then concentrate your effort on understanding other ways to mark the photon.Everything may inevitably change the photon orientation somehow, you can use Half silvered mirrors, but also be aware of such things as the phase change expected with Beam Splitters.You will have to come up with your own idea of what experiment layout will satisfy your desire for the "marking" itself to not be responsible for the two line pattern.We only know that erasing this which-way information is what restores the interference pattern.Good luck anon.
>>12962716forgot to mention non linear crystals.
>>12962970You have major misunderstandings about the experiment and you sound like the schizo from before, but I'll take my chance. >interested in seeing a two line pattern using only one photon at a timeMost experiment don't do this, because it's pretty boring. Does this satisfy your demands? https://www.nature.com/articles/44348>He is already well aware >>12962721 quantum erasers restore the interference pattern.Learn to read. Nobody claimed he wasn't.
>>12963341>Most experiment don't do this, because it's pretty boring. Does this satisfy your demands?If generally nobody bothers to even conduct the experiment then just state no such pic exists so I don't have what you're looking for.It may also help if you provide links to articles that anons don't have to pay for in order to read them. Would you like to upload pics of whatever its stating or you also generally don't bother either?
>>12963445The question relates to the link afterwards.>you also generally don't bother either?Honestly, it's really difficult to muster up any motivation with your attitude here.
>>12963465>The question relates to the link afterwards.Then why didn't you provide that link instead?Also which of those further links does not also lead to pay money first articles?I've not yet found any further link offering a free pic of what we're after.Can you please instead link to where we can see the pic without paying money first?
>>12963492>Then why didn't you provide that link instead?Are you blind? It's right there.>what is sci-hub
>>12963562>The question relates to the link afterwards.>Are you blind? It's right there.>what is sci-hubyeh, sorry for being blind.I personally can't find any link to sci-hub anywhere on this page at all.Can you screenshot where on the page that link is or copy that link location?If you don't wish to for "whatever" reason, then if I go looking on sci-hub for this specific article then it will provide the pics requested and not just be a wild goose chase larp?
>>12963562>>12963625Here is the sci-hub link for anyone interested, there's no two line pattern pic so I'll leave it up for yourselves to decide if this article is just another massive nothing burger.https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/44348
>>12963341>Most experiment don't do this, because it's pretty boring. Does this satisfy your demands?This guy is kinda right but is intentionally vague. The reality is no one, not even Feynman took the time to actually analyze the classical case. I'm the first person in history to analyze and simulated the two slit classical system. My conclusion is you get an interference pattern. I posted my results here. This renders the original thought experiment a pointless ramble of an poorly informed charlatan just trying to hype up quantum nonsense.
PUBLISH AND PROOOOOVE IT!!!!!
>>12964139>My conclusion is you get an interference pattern. I posted my results hereThat's wrong and no you didn't.Again, the two lines are from closing one of the slits and overlaying the results. You did not employ a measuring contraption in your silly sketch. You are stupid.
>>12962716>polarizers would cause the waves to not interfereWell that's the fucking point, duh.
>>12964188>Again, the two lines are from closing one of the slits and overlaying the resultsSo? The classical interference pattern doesn't include violating causality and claiming all phenomenon are random. It's still the correct result without violating physical laws, how do you imply this invalidates my results? Why do you insist that the REAL solution can only be the one that violates causality, conservation, determinism, and common sense?
>>12945421what do physicist and schizos have in common? reply related.
Utterly stagnant brainlet thread, manhandled by OCD schizo samefag faking entire revenge conversation with himself & promoting the gayest laser shit show of all time.Absolutely nothing worthwhile not already well boring anyway. Just a schizo control freak hindering all discussion except fuckwit polarize filters and he sends you on a wild goose chase to find a massive nothing burger.OCD control freak schizos should be shot on sight.He will be the one whom replies.Also: All posters below this are faggots.