Pig Head Award 2022
Aknight’s research on double slits experiment in PHF.
Piggy’s additional comment here:
Quote aknight’s this paragraph first:
“This is the very heart of the so-called “measurement problem.” By localizing the particle (or whatever the hell it is) within the two slits, we assume that it is in superposition Ψ(x) = ΨL(x) + ΨR(x). But if we subsequently measure the particle as having come from one of the slits (called a “which-way” measurement), then we were wrong about its earlier state. And if we were right about its earlier state, then it will forever remain in a superposition.”
He is also suspecting the illusive view of the world “the world is in an undetermined state until it is observed”.
At that time, piggy replied aknight with traditional QM thinking. He seemed not so satisfactory.
A few weeks later, piggy decided to “touch the elephant” in my own way and contemplated to give up the traditional conception of probability wave.
Now, as piggy declared in the thread “matter vs anti matter” and the thread “T vs R”, the pig had entirely give up the traditional conception of probability wave.
Piggy reorganizes relevant analysis and repeats it here for reference.
Double slits experiment (for electron), touchy and feely
Piggy encountered much such issue about this experiment. An outstanding example is as one of our fellow guy’s post in his thread:
“The double-slit experiment proves:
1. That the observer is REAL and has a REAL effect on the world.
2. That the world is in an undetermined state until it is observed.”
Pig’s analysis as below:
The objectivity of nature should not change following man’s subjectivity of observation. If “the world” is “in an undetermined state”, it’s just “in an undetermined state”. It should not turn into “a determined state” following man’s observation. A vivid analogy is that “no matter you observe or not, the clock is ticking (quoted from Woody’s comment in PHF. Piggy forgot where it was.)”
How did such a view as “the world is in an undetermined state until it is observed” appear in the “standard” scientific community?
It originated from such a phenomenon: when a detector is fixed after the slits to find out which slit the electron passed through, the interference pattern disappeared. What appeared on the screen / film was only two straight strips.
Once upon a time piggy argued fiercely about this issue with those “main stream” guys in PHF.
The trouble comes from their pursuit of the “linear superposition” conception. (“trapped in linear physics” as Mark said). The “main stream” consider that the electron passed through two slits in different “undetermined” statesΨ1 + Ψ2 in case of without observation. Piggy always jokes it “one rabbit in two holes”.
In case of observation, piggy’s humble opinion is as below:
If the detector found out the electron passed through slit 1, it just represented the event “the electron passed through slit 1” in experiment; if the detector found out the electron passed through slit 2, it just represented the event “the electron passed through slit 2” in experiment.
How can they “sure enough” that the electron turned from “undetermined” to “determined” and only passed through one slit?
Moreover, the observation happened AFTER the slits. How can something happened later decided something happened first?
Experiment eyes model (theory) is one of the cancers in modern day physics research.
Because experimental analysis might be disturbed by theory, piggy suggested them to renew the experimental analysis.
Actually, what the experiment demonstrates exactly is just that the electron passed through either of the slits (or say, no electron can pass through two slits) because no evidence can demonstrate that a detector has ever found an electron passed through two slits. The electron is ever in a determined state.
EXPERIMENT IS JUST EXPERIMENT.
Fact is fact.
Actually, the experiment just proves that the theory of “linear superposition” is NOT in conformity with experiment.
Then what caused the interference pattern in case of without observation? And why the interference pattern disappeared in case of observation?
With regard to the former question, piggy explained it with the new conception of “wave characteristic of electric interaction”. We know that electric field E can be in two slits.
With regard to the latter question, piggy explained it with the idea “the interference information was disturbed by the detector”. Electromagnetic disturbance is a technology well known by people.
For details, please see relevant post in the thread “matter vs anti matter”.
Moreover, although “linear superposition” in traditional conception of probability wave can explain the dark / bright strips in the diffraction / interference pattern, it can’t sufficiently explain the course of the formation of the diffraction / interference pattern: why electron hit a tiny spot on the screen?
Piggy’s physics model can explain both explicitly.
When piggy argued with those “main stream” guys over the problem about double slits experiment, piggy asked a question:
“In the old style CRT TV set, electron beam seems not willing to take another possible route on the grass screen. Why electron has to actively seek another slit on the apparatus to go through (in the double slits experiment) ? ”
(The example of oscilloscope or say “wave displayer” is more explicit.)
That rabbit Dandan threw out a reason: “The electrons take all possible paths open to them.” The key word was “open”. But if a rabbit can appear in front of two through holes, it can appear in front of two blind holes too; if a rabbit can’t appear in front of two blind holes, it can’t appear in front of two through holes too. It’s easy to understand. Obviously that rabbit Dandan employed an excuse/ trick.
The fun thing is that even those “main stream” guys themselves seem not entirely trust in their “standard” explanation with the theory of “linear superposition” (“one rabbit in two holes”).
As piggy mentioned last year in the Pig Head Award 2021 No. 7 position, that “authentic” rabbit Dandan said: “I would laugh at how lame It all sounds but it works.”
According to piggy’s new explanation, it works too, moreover, no lame sounds at all. Everything is physical and understandable. Why it must not be a good thing?
April 22, 2022
Perhaps piggy has to accept the First Limitation claimed by the First Logic (the First Order) to do a security guard in the Jiangmen city. Unfortunately, piggy is old and is in bad health (due to the cruel and all around dark sanction of the First Order for so many years), piggy even is not able to secure his own old bones. That means piggy die hard logically.
Nonetheless, today piggy, an alive dead man of the Jiangmen city can still PRESENCE in this world and do something meaningful in science as well as meaningful in piggy’s own life too. Piggy feels very glory.
Thanks G*. Thanks a2k. Thanks America.