"God does not play dice":

OK, this seems like the scenario I mentioned before about the electron gun firing through slots in the shadow mask in a trinatron picture tube.

But about the machine gun, I would logically expect to find two rectangular patterns of bullet holes whose width, height and separation was determined by the distance between machine gun and titanium plate.

I understand it was a set of mathematic models.
Can approximation always be the same as original?
Can nowadays approximate AI be the same as human in nature?
I think a mathematically model may not be enough, though we can only reach the truth to some degree.

I understand it was a set of mathematic models.
Can approximation always be the same as original?
Can nowadays approximate AI be the same as human in nature?
I think a mathematically model may not be enough, though we can only reach the truth to some degree.

I can understand that what we used to rely on may not be the same as what is working in microscope, but it worth a try to explain in usual words.

So if you did this experiment, and what you saw was something like this.




How do you explain this pattern? (You may know the answer already).

If done with light I'd say it was due to cancelation and additive behavior of the light waves. I know intellectually that electrons can behave in the same way but I can't really wrap my head around it.

Quantum Mechanics started when DeBroglie suggested matter waves, and then Schrodinger developed the wave equation. The consequences were quite strange, in fact this is what inspired Einstein's "God does not play dice..." quote.

However Schrondiger's equation was well tested by experiment.

They kept on coming up with stranger and stranger experiments testing the more unexpected consequences of Schrodinger's equation, and the experiments kept confirming the equation as a valid mathematical model. The latest experiment where... where they separated two entangled photons at such a distance that they could not be "exchanging information" happened just this year, and yes the experiment again confirmed Schrodinger's equation.

It is difficult, even for expert physicists to wrap their heads around these consequences because they are so counterintuitive. But we have the mathematical model with Physicists can understand and can use to make very accurate predictions and to make the cool technology we are using to communicate right now.

You read the news in a wrong way.
The photons do not really "exchange" some information, they just 'shared' the same state.
Alright, let here be a coupled machines in outputing the coupled results, we can also expect them to output the same result even if we seprate them.
This does not mean 'exchange' any way.

So that I'm investigating what's wrong around the world. Dues to earlier thinkings, there are much more truth hidden than I expected.

May be some thing basic is missing, I think we'd better return to the point where we get start and re-examine the path.

I'm doing more or less the same thing Heermosi. Often wish I could stop.
Sometimes I think there is so much distortion and counterfeit stuff around that the truth ain't got a chance.

Makes it look like God actually was playing dice.

Actually, the reading problem is yours...

Read my post again (carefully this time).

I'm sorry, If you did not intended to claim it can "exchange information" beyond time limit.

I've reviewed a recent dual slit experiment report on shooting electrons.
I guess there is solid proof for particle-wave effect.
Though I still cannot figure it out, I shall list it below.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/15/3/033018

However this experiment did not show the difference on observations, which is a pity.

Read the description of the double slit experiment in the book I recommended (The search for Shrodinger's cat). He does a very good job at explaining the weirdness. I don't think I will do it justice.

But the explanation goes something like this... consider a single electron in the double slit experiment. Presumably it has to go through one slit or the other... but which? You can think about this without diving into the mathematics by imagining what happens when you block on of the slits.

The mathematical answer is that the double slit experiment is accurately modeled with Schrodinger's equation. When you solve the equation to answer the question about which slit the electron goes through, the mathematical answer is a vector. The way to explain this with words is that it goes through both. This is where the weirdness starts.

You can kind of understand this if you think about the machine gun bullet example... if two slits makes 8 or 12 "piles" of bullets. But one slit only makes 1 pile of bullets (as we get from the thought experiment), think about what that means for individual bullets going through individual slips.

To get the interference pattern is counterintuitive... it is not what you would expect given your understanding of the world. As you dive into the mathematics, it gets even more counterintuitive... and yet the math and its strange predictions keep getting confirmed by experiment.

But read the section on the dual slit experiment in the book I recommended. I think it will be a lot better than reading my poorly written explanations here.

In college I did some experiments bouncing x-rays off of crystals. The atoms in the crystals act as slits, and you can use Schrodingers equation to predict the interference pattern of the x-rays based on the pattern of how the atoms are arranged.

It is some pretty cool stuff.

That's really good experience. I'm wondering what you are doing now?

Yet I've prepared some what simple questions that should be easily answered. I think you may be knowledgeable to have known its answer(or some one had carried out).

Here it is:

There is that a ball was floating freely on the surface of water, and there this a spring connected with a smaller ball inside it.

The spring would start bouncing with a frequency F(this is a wave source), and let here be another wave source on the surface fixed, generating wave with the same frequency F.

The the problem is : shall the free ball be affected or not? how shall it be affected?

Here I did not restrict the bouncing direction of the spring, please note that.

I think I understand it better now that I understand the scale at which these phenomenon take place.

Is this homework, Heermosi, or a test? I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. I think the problem you are describing involves damping of a harmonic oscillator. The description you are giving is poor, you don't explain how the springs are attached (a ball in water would spin depending on the center of mass of the entire system), or the dynamics of the water waves.

You can read about damping of harmonic oscillators here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator.

There is a Quantum analogue to this.... but unless this is a test I really don't think you are really interested in Eigenvalues or Hermite Polynomials.

Well, if there is no such experiment carried out. I shall do it. This is not quite expensive...
I just come here to confirm it : how shall a movable wave source behave when affected by other wave sources.

Well I must admit you guessed something right, the spring connected object is just working as an harmonic oscilator.

And I've been working for 8 years, that's not a test or so, I just asked for help simply.

I'm amateur to physics. I just want to stop the brain being occupied by those all popped up ideas.

The experiment you are suggesting sounds analogous to a car suspension. There has been a lot of research on this topic for obvious reasons.

Somebody posted this once and was treated badly for it but I think they were dead on to do so.

5 Summary of common interpretations of quantum mechanics
5.1 Classification adopted by Einstein
5.2 The Copenhagen interpretation
5.3 Many worlds
5.4 Consistent histories
5.5 Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation
5.6 de Broglie–Bohm theory
5.7 Relational quantum mechanics
5.8 Transactional interpretation
5.9 Stochastic mechanics
5.10 Objective collapse theories
5.11 von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse
5.12 Many minds
5.13 Quantum logic
5.14 Quantum information theories
5.15 Modal interpretations of quantum theory
5.16 Time-symmetric theories
5.17 Branching space–time theories
5.18 Other interpretations

The reality that gives birth to the science must also be part of the interpretation of its results. An equation says nothing