Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The purpose of the Peano Axioms
Next: Abbreviating First Order Logic With Identity and Membership
From: PD on 12 May 2010 15:08 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. > > Only in your state of delusional denial of the Copenhagen > interpretation of QM do you have to disregard the fact that placing > detectors at the exits to the slits in order to determine if the > particle exits one or both slits IS an experiment. > > > > The experimental evidence IS the particle ALWAYS exits a single > > > slit. When you do not perform the experiment and you assume the > > > particle exits both slits, that is exactly what you are doing, > > > assuming. The is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence of the particle EVER exiting > > > both slits. > > > > > > > > That is what you do when you perform experiments. The arrive at > > > > > > > conclusions based upon the experiment. In the 'Detector Experiment' > > > > > > > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit so the 'Detector > > > > > > > Experiment' provides experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > No, that would be extrapolating a conclusion beyond what you have data > > > > > > for. You have data for the class of circumstances in which there is a > > > > > > detector at the slits. This data does not allow you to conclude what > > > > > > happens when there is no detector at the slits. You have no data for > > > > > > that in your "detector experiment". You need a different experiment to > > > > > > test what happens when there are no detectors at the slits. > > > > > > > Any bonehead would be able to see that? > > > > > > > Are you not even able to see what a bonehead can see? > > > > > > Anyone who has any clue, except for those in a state of delusional > > > > > denial believing in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM understand > > > > > placing detectors at the exits to the slits is an experiment. If you > > > > > conclude something else occur when you do not perform the experiment > > > > > and you have no evidence of that something else then you are assuming > > > > > something else occurs which is not supported by the experiment > > > > > evidence of the 'Detector Experiment'. > > > > > So I guess the answer is no, you cannot see even what a bonehead would > > > > be able to see. Oh well. > > > > > > > > Now, you can conclude the particle exits both slits when you do not > > > > > > > detect it but that is an assumption that is not based upon any > > > > > > > experimental evidence. The experimental evidence is the particle > > > > > > > ALWAYS exits a single slit. The reason why ALL of the experimental > > > > > > > evidence supports the conclusion the particle ALWAYS exits a single > > > > > > > slit because whenever an experiment is executed in order to determine > > > > > > > if the particle exits one slit or both slits the particle is ALWAYS > > > > > > > detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > In experimental science, one learns not to extrapolate findings into > > > > > > circumstances beyond which you have direct experimental support.. You > > > > > > are guilty of scientific fraud here. > > > > > > The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is guilty of scientific fraud for > > > > > assuming the particle exits both slits when not detected. There is no > > > > > evidence the particle exits both slits. All of the experiment evidence > > > > > is of the particle ALWAYS exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > If you do not perform the 'Detector Experiment' and you assume the > > > > > > > > > particle exits both slits your assumption is not supported by the > > > > > > > > > 'Detector Experiment' experimental evidence. > > > > > > > > > But I'm looking at more experimental evidence than your stupid, > > > > > > > > restricted "detector experiment" evidence. I'm also including other > > > > > > > > experiments like the double slit experiment, including the > > > > > > > > configuration when there is no detector at either slit. > > > > > > > > > Geez, what an ignoramus. > > > > > > > > > > > > The experimental > > > > > > > > > > > evidence associated with the experiment is the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. We've just been through that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM do > > > > > > > > > > > you perform an experiment, where the result is the particle ALWAYS > > > > > > > > > > > exits a single slit, then say the opposite occurs when the experiment > > > > > > > > > > > is NOT performed, AND say that that supports the experimental > > > > > > > > > > > evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, that isn't the experiment at all. Perhaps you need to remind > > > > > > > > > > yourself what the experiment is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time for you to read up on how this is possible. Would you like a > > > > > > > > > > > > reference to a really good book on this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > >
From: spudnik on 12 May 2010 15:51 Copenhagen's "reifiying" of the mere probabilities of detection, is the biggest problem, whence comes both "perfect vacuum" and "quantum foam" etc. ad vomitorium, as well as the brain-dead "photon" of massless and momentumless and pointy rocks o'light, perfectly aimed at the recieving cone in your eye, like a small pizza pie. <verbatim deleted> > 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. > > read more » thus: all vacuums are good, if they suck hard enough, but there is no absolute vacuum, either on theoretical or Copenhagenskooler fuzzy math grounds. ao, what is the "ruling out" in the article? > From what I've read so far I'm not buying any pure vacuum effect has > been explained theoretically. Relying on Thomas's article from Baez thus: magnetohydrodynamics is probably the way to go, yes; not "perfect vacuum or bearings" -- and, where did the link about YORP, include any thing about the air-pressure?... seems to me, it's assuming Pascal's old, perfected Plenum. twist your mind away from the "illustrated in _Conceptual Physics/for Dummies_" nothingness of the massless & momentumless & pointy "photon" of the Nobel-winning "effect" in an electronic device -- yeah, CCDs -- the Committee's lame attempt to "save the dysappearance" of Newton's corpuscle. also, please don't brag about free God-am energy, til you can demonstrate it in a perpetuum mobile! > > In the link mentioned above is stated, that the > > vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard > > vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops. > It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids thus: so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes on a spindle in a relative vacuum? you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically by atoms in them; then, perhaps, the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one. thus: even if neutrinos don't exist, Michelson and Morely didn't get no results! > Could neutrino availability affect decay rates? thus: I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can be made ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article, which is not quite what I was refering to! > http://thorium.50webs.com/ thus: every technique has problems. like, you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic, without a good lightbulb. the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication, the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub, the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium). > Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 12 May 2010 17:39 On May 12, 2:57 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 mayo, 14:37, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Only in your state of delusional denial of the Copenhagen > > interpretation of QM do you have to disregard the fact that placing > > detectors at the exits to the slits in order to determine if the > > particle exits one or both slits IS an experiment. > > This is too funny and clearly shows the ignorance of mpc755. You > mpc755 could learn a lot by just reading a serious physics book, such > as the one by Feynman. I recommend you the volume 1 chapter 37 of the > Feynman Lectures on Physics. Specifically the following sections: > > 37-2 An experiment with bullets > 37-3 An experiment with waves > 37-4 An experiment with electrons > 37-5 The interference of electron waves > 37-6 Watching the electrons > > Miguel Rios You could learn a lot by answering the following: 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.
From: mpc755 on 12 May 2010 17:41 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.
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 |