h a l f b a k e r y
Bone to the bad.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
The photons are particles with a minute but existant electro-
magnetic field around them.
Waves are created when the photon fields from one slit
with other fields of photons from the other streams exiting the
other slits, and move the photons off their course. But with a
they are leaving the slit as a stream of particles
interacting with any other particles to their side, and so reach
point and do not draw extra stripes.
Think of tiny magnets instead of the iron filings that show the
Shooting them through a single slit, they stay in line. Opening
slits causes them to pan out. Is that so hard to understand?
The single stream is held in line by a helical formation of
spinning photons. The electromagnetic fields around each
photon are locked in a rotating cilinder directed forward
similar to what happens vertically in tornado physics or in air
and water turbulance. It holds as long as there is no
disturbance from adjacent parallel streams.
To check this in water waves, I would use pipes with water
exiting in such a formation and see how it behaved at a
distance before a single stream dissipated. Then would take
multiple pipes and see whether the helixes would break down
and turn into the equivalent of a single wave hitting multiple
Another experiment closely resembling my model would be to
shoot a stream of small spinning ball magnets from a single
pipe, and then shooting them from multiple parallel pipes.
Finally, I would check if my theory holds in the case of sending
these tiny spinning magnets on a board with a single slit and
with several slits. If the stream of magnets from a single slit
would create a single hit-area opposite the slit, I'm quite sure
that the multiple slits would cause a wave effect.
Lastly, I would check that there is no effect caused by the
multiple slits on the INCOMING particles. Which could enhance
or even be the cause of this phenomenon:
Particles directed at my slit being deflected off the tip and not
entering it will only affect particles from other slits, prior to or
after the slit. So with one slit these deflected particles have
no effect, but with more than one slit, the particles affect
each other causing waveform interaction patterns.
The elegant Mach Zehnder Interferometer experiment in the
two-door exit lecture series and book, could equally be easily
Rout 1 RR: (half the photons): Reflected then Reflected.
Rout 2 TR: (half the photons): Transmitted then Reflected.
With a second Beam Splitter:
When the beams are passing through each other, neither beam
has any affect on the other, but when hitting a Beam
1a (RR) - is continuing to D1 as expected.
1b (RR) - seems to continue to D1 instead of being deflected to
2a (TR) - is deflected to D1 as expected.
2b (TR) - seems to be deflected to D1 instead of continuing on
The key to this would be to understand the "splitter". If there is
some pull between the particles like there is in streaming
water I could easily build a splitter pipe that when water
enters it from the side sends all the output one way, but when
receiving only water from one source splits the stream in two,
letting half continue straight on and half deflected to a pipe on
the side. Nothing mysterious here. It would simply be the
opposite of the Bernoulli effect.
Through Two Doors at Once: The Elegant Experiment That Captures the Enigma of Our Quantum Reality
[kdf, Sep 22 2020]
Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations.
Required reading [8th of 7, Sep 22 2020]
An early attempt to try an HB idea in the "Real World" [8th of 7, Sep 23 2020]
||//Shooting them through a single slot, they stay in line.
Opening two slots causes them to pan out.// - so they know
before they leave how many slits there are?
||Particles with a field around them. But a field
||Mechanistic explanations treating photons
definitively as waves or particles ultimately fail
because they are neither - even though at various
scales some of their behavior may be explained in
those terms. The usefulness of any theory
(including yours) is measured by how precisely it
explains current observations and its ability to
predict future ones.
||Anything else is just hand-waving.
(because hand-particle-ing would just sound
||[kdf] - yes, 'wave' and 'particle' are just models; they don't
really describe the physical reality
||Actually there might only be one of them, capable of manifesting as both [kdf] and [hippo] ...
||"...there might only be one of them, capable of manifesting
as both [kdf] and [hippo] ..."
-8th of 7, Sep 22 2020
||I have not yet, in my subjective timeline, manifested as
hippo. But as time travel of a sort is essential to how the
universe really works, it may come to pass.
||How about it [hippo], do you recall ever being me?
||Are you sure that's grammatically correct ?
||We suggest you consult Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's definitve work on the subject.
||Quite. Common English verb tenses are adequate
for relating past, present, and future in linear and
subjective time. Its only when things get bunched
up in loops and knots that Streetmentioners work
||Sounds like someone just discovered the double slit experiment.
||//How about it [hippo], do you recall ever being
No, I don't think so, but that doesn't prove
anything. It could be that I turn into [kdf] at the full
moon and post strange, other-worldly ideas and
annotations, eventually waking as [hippo], bathed in
sweat, with cracked, broken and bloody fingernails and
an acid taste in my mouth and a hazy, fleeting memory of
furious typing. If this is true then during these waking
hours the [hippo] part of my mind locks away these
disturbing and perverse [kdf] memories for its own
Or it could be the other way round -
i.e. I might be Mr Hyde, rather than Dr Jekyll
||Edited my hand particling.
||Schrodinger's cat "thought experiment" was meant to prove
how WRONG and absurd it is to think that the cat was in
some both-alive-and-dead at-the-same-time state.
||He meant us to accept that the cat was alive till some point
in time, and dead only after that, and that it was only a
problem of our knowledge. (An autopsy for example could
give us some clues about how long the cat had been dead).
||I am claiming that we can create the same effect of single
slits with water or tiny magnets.
||(Sorry about the spelling mistale, English is my secondary
language. I knew: "I slit a sheet, a sheet I slit. And on the
slitted sheet I sit". So I thought that slits were about cutting
and slots were about openings. Professor Avraham Hochberg
in his Biochemistry course at the Hebrew U used to ask for
native english speakers to read aloud "Beta Pleated Sheet"
because, as he explained in Hebrew, he never gets which is
which correctly. )
||Turn it into science* then. Propose an experiment
for which your theory predicts a DIFFERENT result
than previous works. Then DO the experiment and
publish your results**
||*If you cant measure it, its not science.
||**If others cant replicate your results, you havent
||Some words of warning; previous attempts to prove out some apparently innocuous HB ideas in the "real world" have yielded varying results.
||This sounds fairly harmless, mind. Hard to see any obvious way it's going to burn the lab down ...
||Right. As long as pashute's experiment doesn't involve
aquariums, cross bows, or high-power lasers, or incendiary
devices, or peanut butter - his lab and
surrounding territories are probably safe.
||And [pash], you've absolutely no need to worry that other bakers will use your spelling mistakes, limited command of English, or imperfect understanding of basic physics as an excuse to deride and humiliate you.
||We don't need excuses; we do it as Standard Operating Procedure...
||<Obligatory faux-Hispanic "Hwee doan' need no steenkeeng hexcuses" parodic misquote/>
||Does the the skating bubble of coffee move in bound ways because the coffee surface, the field, is the environmental information of the cup?
||The philosopher Didactylos has summed up an alternative hypothesis as "Things just happen. What the hell".
||//Borg do it unanimously.//
||While they're all busy getting it on, who's flying the
Cube? How do they get that many species to follow
the same libidic rhythm and timing? How do they
deal with trisexual species? How many nursing
facilities does it take to handle the huge population
increase afterwards? So many questions...
||Two experiments that succeeded in my lab and prove the
||1. Take a rotating elastic rod strung through magnetic
beads, each bead set in opposing direction to the previous
bead, so they repell and stay distant from each other. The
rod is only elastic enough to allow "wave" movement, but
not for the magnets to pull each other. Rotate the beads
on the rods. Now do so for another rod.
||a) Try pulling each
rod upwards (like when pulling a fish out of the water with
a fishing rod) and notice that the rod of beads, now
in a straight line with the beads at first pulling together a
bit (during the initial pull) and then bouncing back and
forth in a wave movement, but staying in a straight line
one behind the other.
||b) Now do the same experiment, bring up two rods, causing
a slight interaction between them. In order to keep the
interaction small, so that the rods don't pull and attach to
each other, try out different distances until the rods
don't pull enough to completely connect, but do effect the
magnets on the other rod.
||Result explained simply: We have particles (the beads)
causing wave interference when interfering with each
other, but without a second interference behave as
"particles" moving in a straight line.
||The strange part is that there is nothing strange about this,
and it is totally intuitive. Which is what I am trying to
||2. Two lasers each with a slit in front of it, in parallel to
each other will create a stripe interference on each of the
opposing walls even though there is only one stream of
light and only a single slit in each wall. Proof that there is
interference from one light stream on the other.
||The other more advanced experiments I proposed in the
newly edited idea have not been tried, and I doubt that
they would fail.
||Beads on a string on not photons.
||No, in fact they sound like something [xen] would use on her Discerning Gentlemen Clients, for an additional fee.
||To be fair to [pash], it's just another model; an interpretation of observed phenomena. It can be billiard balls, or pages of equations, but ultimately it's an attempt to describe something that's not directly observable at its fundamental level.
||A good predictive model is the best that can be hoped for.