Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "Fabrication" or "Lie" in the IPCC AR4 WGI
Next: Chapt 3, Fiberglass Experiment; using only luminosity for distance measure #62; ATOM TOTALITY
From: PD on 12 May 2010 17:55 On May 12, 4:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 12, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 8:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 12, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 11, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 2:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 11:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should also work on answering the following with an answer that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does not require the future to determine the past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? The model accounts for all the experimental evidence. It works > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work on understanding what experimental evidence is. If a C-60 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit in a double slit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiment this is evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS exits a single > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. Sorry, it just isn't. It is evidence that the molecule > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exits a single slit *when* there is a detector there -- nothing more, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing less. The presence or absence of the detector changes that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The presence of the detector IS the experiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. That's not the experiment at all. Do you not understand the > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment? > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to determine if the particle exits one or both slits in a > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment, an experiment is performed. The experiment to > > > > > > > > > > > detect if the particle exits a single slit or both slits places > > > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits. The experiment is called the > > > > > > > > > > > 'Detector Experiment'. > > > > > > > > > > > That's fine, but that isn't the double slit experiment. And in the > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment, the interesting behavior is what is *observed* > > > > > > > > > > when there is no detector at either slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'Detector Experiment' is performed over and over again with all > > > > > > > > > > > types of particles. After thousands and thousands of executions of the > > > > > > > > > > > 'Detector Experiment' with hundreds of different types of particles > > > > > > > > > > > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit.. The 'Detector > > > > > > > > > > > Experiment' provides experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > No, it provides experimental evidence that a particle always exits a > > > > > > > > > > single slit when there is a detector placed at a slit -- that's all. > > > > > > > > > > In order to test whether a particle exits a single slit when there is > > > > > > > > > > no detector at the slit, you're going to have to find a way to do it > > > > > > > > > > without a detector at the slit. > > > > > > > > > > > Don't be a doofus. This should be obvious. > > > > > > > > > > It is obvious if you conclude the particle exits both slits when there > > > > > > > > > are no detectors at the slit then you are disregarding the > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence arrived at from the 'Detector Experiment'. > > > > > > > > > No, we are not. The currently accurately predicts what will be > > > > > > > > observed when there are detectors at the slits. Hence that data is not > > > > > > > > being disregarded. > > > > > > > > It also accurately predicts what will be observed when there are no > > > > > > > > detectors at the slits. > > > > > > > > But the experiment is the detectors at the exits. > > > > > > > No it isn't. Perhaps you need to have a better idea what the double > > > > > > slit experiment is about. > > > > > > > > The 'Detector > > > > > > > Experiment' is experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > When there is a detector at the slit. Period. No evidence whatsoever > > > > > > about what happens when there is no detector at the slits in your > > > > > > experiment. None. > > > > > > The experiment IS the placement of the detectors at the exits to the > > > > > slits. > > > > > I'm sorry. You don't have the foggiest idea what an experiment is or > > > > how to test anything in an experiment. You're hopeless, useless, and > > > > surly. > > > > I understand exactly what an experiment is. You want experimental > > > evidence if the particle exits on or both slits so you place detectors > > > at the exits. The placing of detectors at the exits IS the experiment.. > > > No, that is NOT the experiment. > > In the double slit experiment, the experiment probes the difference in > > behavior when there is a detector at the slits and when there is no > > detector at the slits. So both setups are needed to get the direct > > measurement of what happens in both cases. > > What you want to do is to replace this experiment with the one only > > involving detectors at the slits, and then insisting that nothing > > changes if the detector is not at the slits. > > > You do not understand the experiment. You do not understand how to do > > an experiment to test something. You are a nimrod. > > Placing detectors at the exits to the slits in order to determine if > the particle exits one or both slits is an EXPERIMENT performed within > the double slit experiment. And that experiment ONLY tells you part of the information that the double slit experiment gives you. I really have a hard time believing that you cannot understand the very simple statement made above about what needs to be tested and what conditions have to be included in the test. This is the kind of thing that 4th graders learn in their science classes. The fact that you cannot absorb this tells me that one of two things is in effect in your head: - You are significantly more stupid than a 4th grader, or - You are so entrenched with your preset conclusions that, despite seeing and understanding the above, admitting it to yourself let alone to anyone else would be too much of an ego blow to tolerate. Either way, there's really not much point in discussing it further with you, since I'd have about the same luck convincing a brown paper bag full of popcorn. PD
From: BURT on 12 May 2010 18:00 On May 12, 2:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 4:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 12, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 12, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 12, 8:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 12, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 11, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 2:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 11:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should also work on answering the following with an answer that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does not require the future to determine the past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? The model accounts for all the experimental evidence. It works > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work on understanding what experimental evidence is. If a C-60 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit in a double slit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiment this is evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS exits a single > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. Sorry, it just isn't. It is evidence that the molecule > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exits a single slit *when* there is a detector there -- nothing more, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing less. The presence or absence of the detector changes that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The presence of the detector IS the experiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. That's not the experiment at all. Do you not understand the > > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to determine if the particle exits one or both slits in a > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment, an experiment is performed. The experiment to > > > > > > > > > > > > detect if the particle exits a single slit or both slits places > > > > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits. The experiment is called the > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Detector Experiment'. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's fine, but that isn't the double slit experiment. And in the > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment, the interesting behavior is what is *observed* > > > > > > > > > > > when there is no detector at either slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'Detector Experiment' is performed over and over again with all > > > > > > > > > > > > types of particles. After thousands and thousands of executions of the > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Detector Experiment' with hundreds of different types of particles > > > > > > > > > > > > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. The 'Detector > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiment' provides experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it provides experimental evidence that a particle always exits a > > > > > > > > > > > single slit when there is a detector placed at a slit -- that's all. > > > > > > > > > > > In order to test whether a particle exits a single slit when there is > > > > > > > > > > > no detector at the slit, you're going to have to find a way to do it > > > > > > > > > > > without a detector at the slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't be a doofus. This should be obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > It is obvious if you conclude the particle exits both slits when there > > > > > > > > > > are no detectors at the slit then you are disregarding the > > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence arrived at from the 'Detector Experiment'. > > > > > > > > > > No, we are not. The currently accurately predicts what will be > > > > > > > > > observed when there are detectors at the slits. Hence that data is not > > > > > > > > > being disregarded. > > > > > > > > > It also accurately predicts what will be observed when there are no > > > > > > > > > detectors at the slits. > > > > > > > > > But the experiment is the detectors at the exits. > > > > > > > > No it isn't. Perhaps you need to have a better idea what the double > > > > > > > slit experiment is about. > > > > > > > > > The 'Detector > > > > > > > > Experiment' is experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > > When there is a detector at the slit. Period. No evidence whatsoever > > > > > > > about what happens when there is no detector at the slits in your > > > > > > > experiment. None. > > > > > > > The experiment IS the placement of the detectors at the exits to the > > > > > > slits. > > > > > > I'm sorry. You don't have the foggiest idea what an experiment is or > > > > > how to test anything in an experiment. You're hopeless, useless, and > > > > > surly. > > > > > I understand exactly what an experiment is. You want experimental > > > > evidence if the particle exits on or both slits so you place detectors > > > > at the exits. The placing of detectors at the exits IS the experiment. > > > > No, that is NOT the experiment. > > > In the double slit experiment, the experiment probes the difference in > > > behavior when there is a detector at the slits and when there is no > > > detector at the slits. So both setups are needed to get the direct > > > measurement of what happens in both cases. > > > What you want to do is to replace this experiment with the one only > > > involving detectors at the slits, and then insisting that nothing > > > changes if the detector is not at the slits. > > > > You do not understand the experiment. You do not understand how to do > > > an experiment to test something. You are a nimrod. > > > Placing detectors at the exits to the slits in order to determine if > > the particle exits one or both slits is an EXPERIMENT performed within > > the double slit experiment. > > And that experiment ONLY tells you part of the information that the > double slit experiment gives you. > > I really have a hard time believing that you cannot understand the > very simple statement made above about what needs to be tested and > what conditions have to be included in the test. This is the kind of > thing that 4th graders learn in their science classes. The fact that > you cannot absorb this tells me that one of two things is in effect in > your head: > - You are significantly more stupid than a 4th grader, or > - You are so entrenched with your preset conclusions that, despite > seeing and understanding the above, admitting it to yourself let alone > to anyone else would be too much of an ego blow to tolerate. > > Either way, there's really not much point in discussing it further > with you, since I'd have about the same luck convincing a brown paper > bag full of popcorn. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light collapses the wave function at the two slits. There is no more wave interference. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 12 May 2010 19:44 On May 12, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 4:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 12, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 12, 8:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 12, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 11, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 2:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 11:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should also work on answering the following with an answer that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does not require the future to determine the past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? The model accounts for all the experimental evidence. It works > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work on understanding what experimental evidence is. If a C-60 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit in a double slit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiment this is evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS exits a single > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. Sorry, it just isn't. It is evidence that the molecule > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exits a single slit *when* there is a detector there -- nothing more, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing less. The presence or absence of the detector changes that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The presence of the detector IS the experiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. That's not the experiment at all. Do you not understand the > > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to determine if the particle exits one or both slits in a > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment, an experiment is performed. The experiment to > > > > > > > > > > > > detect if the particle exits a single slit or both slits places > > > > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits. The experiment is called the > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Detector Experiment'. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's fine, but that isn't the double slit experiment. And in the > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment, the interesting behavior is what is *observed* > > > > > > > > > > > when there is no detector at either slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'Detector Experiment' is performed over and over again with all > > > > > > > > > > > > types of particles. After thousands and thousands of executions of the > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Detector Experiment' with hundreds of different types of particles > > > > > > > > > > > > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. The 'Detector > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiment' provides experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it provides experimental evidence that a particle always exits a > > > > > > > > > > > single slit when there is a detector placed at a slit -- that's all. > > > > > > > > > > > In order to test whether a particle exits a single slit when there is > > > > > > > > > > > no detector at the slit, you're going to have to find a way to do it > > > > > > > > > > > without a detector at the slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't be a doofus. This should be obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > It is obvious if you conclude the particle exits both slits when there > > > > > > > > > > are no detectors at the slit then you are disregarding the > > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence arrived at from the 'Detector Experiment'. > > > > > > > > > > No, we are not. The currently accurately predicts what will be > > > > > > > > > observed when there are detectors at the slits. Hence that data is not > > > > > > > > > being disregarded. > > > > > > > > > It also accurately predicts what will be observed when there are no > > > > > > > > > detectors at the slits. > > > > > > > > > But the experiment is the detectors at the exits. > > > > > > > > No it isn't. Perhaps you need to have a better idea what the double > > > > > > > slit experiment is about. > > > > > > > > > The 'Detector > > > > > > > > Experiment' is experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > > When there is a detector at the slit. Period. No evidence whatsoever > > > > > > > about what happens when there is no detector at the slits in your > > > > > > > experiment. None. > > > > > > > The experiment IS the placement of the detectors at the exits to the > > > > > > slits. > > > > > > I'm sorry. You don't have the foggiest idea what an experiment is or > > > > > how to test anything in an experiment. You're hopeless, useless, and > > > > > surly. > > > > > I understand exactly what an experiment is. You want experimental > > > > evidence if the particle exits on or both slits so you place detectors > > > > at the exits. The placing of detectors at the exits IS the experiment. > > > > No, that is NOT the experiment. > > > In the double slit experiment, the experiment probes the difference in > > > behavior when there is a detector at the slits and when there is no > > > detector at the slits. So both setups are needed to get the direct > > > measurement of what happens in both cases. > > > What you want to do is to replace this experiment with the one only > > > involving detectors at the slits, and then insisting that nothing > > > changes if the detector is not at the slits. > > > > You do not understand the experiment. You do not understand how to do > > > an experiment to test something. You are a nimrod. > > > Placing detectors at the exits to the slits in order to determine if > > the particle exits one or both slits is an EXPERIMENT performed within > > the double slit experiment. > > And that experiment ONLY tells you part of the information that the > double slit experiment gives you. > The EXPERIMENT tells you the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. Assuming the particle exits both slits when you do not detect it is not support by the experimental evidence. There is NO experimental evidence of the particle ever exiting more than one slit. There is ZERO experimental evidence to support the assumption the particle exits both slits. Aether Displacement is supported by the only experiment evidence there is which is the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit because it is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. It is the associated aether wave which exits both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. > I really have a hard time believing that you cannot understand the > very simple statement made above about what needs to be tested and > what conditions have to be included in the test. This is the kind of > thing that 4th graders learn in their science classes. The fact that > you cannot absorb this tells me that one of two things is in effect in > your head: > - You are significantly more stupid than a 4th grader, or > - You are so entrenched with your preset conclusions that, despite > seeing and understanding the above, admitting it to yourself let alone > to anyone else would be too much of an ego blow to tolerate. > > Either way, there's really not much point in discussing it further > with you, since I'd have about the same luck convincing a brown paper > bag full of popcorn. > > PD
From: paparios on 12 May 2010 20:38 On 12 mayo, 19:44, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > No, that is NOT the experiment. > > > > In the double slit experiment, the experiment probes the difference in > > > > behavior when there is a detector at the slits and when there is no > > > > detector at the slits. So both setups are needed to get the direct > > > > measurement of what happens in both cases. > > > > What you want to do is to replace this experiment with the one only > > > > involving detectors at the slits, and then insisting that nothing > > > > changes if the detector is not at the slits. > > > > > You do not understand the experiment. You do not understand how to do > > > > an experiment to test something. You are a nimrod. > > > > Placing detectors at the exits to the slits in order to determine if > > > the particle exits one or both slits is an EXPERIMENT performed within > > > the double slit experiment. > > > And that experiment ONLY tells you part of the information that the > > double slit experiment gives you. > > The EXPERIMENT tells you the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. > Assuming the particle exits both slits when you do not detect it is > not support by the experimental evidence. There is NO experimental > evidence of the particle ever exiting more than one slit. There is > ZERO experimental evidence to support the assumption the particle > exits both slits. > You don't have the slightest idea of what the double slit experiment says and how it is carried out. So all your whining is based in total ignorance. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 12 May 2010 20:59
On May 12, 8:38 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 mayo, 19:44, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > No, that is NOT the experiment. > > > > > In the double slit experiment, the experiment probes the difference in > > > > > behavior when there is a detector at the slits and when there is no > > > > > detector at the slits. So both setups are needed to get the direct > > > > > measurement of what happens in both cases. > > > > > What you want to do is to replace this experiment with the one only > > > > > involving detectors at the slits, and then insisting that nothing > > > > > changes if the detector is not at the slits. > > > > > > You do not understand the experiment. You do not understand how to do > > > > > an experiment to test something. You are a nimrod. > > > > > Placing detectors at the exits to the slits in order to determine if > > > > the particle exits one or both slits is an EXPERIMENT performed within > > > > the double slit experiment. > > > > And that experiment ONLY tells you part of the information that the > > > double slit experiment gives you. > > > The EXPERIMENT tells you the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. > > Assuming the particle exits both slits when you do not detect it is > > not support by the experimental evidence. There is NO experimental > > evidence of the particle ever exiting more than one slit. There is > > ZERO experimental evidence to support the assumption the particle > > exits both slits. > > You don't have the slightest idea of what the double slit experiment > says and how it is carried out. So all your whining is based in total > ignorance. > > Miguel Rios What do you think is causing no one, who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, to be able to answer the following question except for the one person who insists the particle enters one slit or both slits depending upon there being detectors at the exits to the slits when it gets there in the future? Think about it. The slits are long enough that it will take the particle a year to travel through them. The particle enters one slit or both slits depending upon what will happen a year from then. And that is the only answer provided for by anyone who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. You could learn a lot by answering the following. It is obvious you can not: A particle is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. The particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. A particle is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits. The particle creates an interference pattern in and of itself. How is this possible? It isn't. The particle has an associated aether wave. The particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. When the associated aether wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave and there is no interference. Here is another one for you to answer. In order to determine if the particle exits multiple slits an EXPERIMENT is performed by placing detectors at the exits to the slits. How is this EXPERIMENT not an experiment? Placing detectors at the exits to the slits in order to determine if the particle exits one or both slits is an experiment. Even the poster who believes the future determines the past has at least finally realized placing the detectors at the exits to the slits in order to determine if the particle exits one slit or multiple slits is an experiment. |