The Instigator
Akhenaten
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mhykiel
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The dual-slit experiment is a fraud

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 984 times Debate No: 81871
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Akhenaten

Pro

I propose that the duel-slit experiment is a fraud. That the effect is not a quantum related problem but is merely a radio wave antenna interference of the slit itself. I also propose that light does not have particle qualities and is purely a wave form.
Mhykiel

Con

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this intriguing resolution. I look forward to thier arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Akhenaten

Pro

Bill Gaede explains things nicely in his video -

Then there's Srinivasa Roa Gonuguntia's science papers.

http://debunkingrelativity.com...

Have fun debunking that!
Mhykiel

Con

R1. Your argument doesn't falsify the results of the Dual slit experiment.

This doesn't seem to falsify the results of the experiment but to offer a different interpretation of those results.

R2. Wave-particle duality is also confirmed by other experiments.

While there are many non-classical attempts at explaining the results of the young experiment, those that accept the duality of light (and other particles) is consistent with other tests. Most famously the Davisson and Germer experiment [1] which confirmed the Louis de Broglie hypothesis. This experiment was the beginning of the electron microscope, it consisted of directing a beam of electrons at a nickel plate and observing the electrons as they bounced off.

R3. Other experiments show that observation or measurement affect the resulting pattern. The presence of the Detector is not important.

There are other variants of the Young experiment such as the Delayed choice quantum eraser [2] which shows that information about the detection of which slit is key to the appearance or disappearance of the interference pattern. In the video it is suggested that the detector is blocking the potential pathways of quanta and that this blocking is why the inference pattern disappears. This simply isn't the case with the quantum eraser experiment that uses entangled particles and splitters to allow for all paths to be taken. The interference pattern is created or null depending on what detectors are looked at. The detectors which allow discernment of which path was taken show a diffraction pattern. The detectors that don't allow knowing which path was taken result in the interference pattern.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Akhenaten

Pro

The basic problem is that scientists don't understand what constitutes mass. Light creates mass as it travels forward, thus, you get the photoelectric effect. Scientists think that light is a particle but it is not. It is a spinning wave of ethons which gives the temporary impression of mass. (Ethon being one unit of aether.) Spin creates dimensional change. Light being a dimensional signature. An ethon doesn't have mass unless it is rotating around another ethon. Thus, mass is just ethons in rotation. You may call these proton, electron and neutron. (Left spin, right spin and no spin ethons).

Quote - The presence of the Detector is not important.

Reply - The detector is very important when dealing with weak forces. The weaker the light, the more influence the detector will have on the result. When a scientist says that they are observing an experiment, it usually means that there are very strong electromagnetic forces being applied to the experiment. Thus, in these cases, the result will be spoiled.

http://www.cellularuniverse.org...

http://www.youtube.com...

0
Mhykiel

Con

I'm not sure about the Ethon. But the Double Slit experiment and it's variants like the Delayed Choice one I mention, infer that wave theory is the most accurate model in predicting quantum behavior. When I said the detector did not matter I began with, "In the video it is suggested that the detector is blocking the potential pathways".

The detector does not block a potential pathway of split light. That is why it is not important. What is important is the amount of information detected. If the information is not enough to discern which path the photons went through then there will be an interference pattern.

As to why "observation" or "measurement" causes such a reaction, A recent Italian Experiment using a filter over one slit, suggests that measurement causes electrons to propagate inelastically. Which localizes the wave function. [1]

I think the main point is that there are many experiments that confirm the wave properties of quantum entities. Currently there is no way we can really know what particles look like. But what Science does is it creates models. And the accurate models of quantum particles utilize the idealization of them being wave-like. It is these models which have led to the development of the electron microscope.

The wave-particle duality of matter is not just confined to subatomic particles. An Experiment carried out by Brezger Et al, Showed an interference pattern with C70 fullerene molecules.[2]

And now you jump into talking about the Aether. It makes a debate with you difficult. What I find interesting is in history when new aspects of nature are trying to be understood the default route to go is a liquid like medium. Understandable the movement of water is still quite hard to predict. Heat was thought to flow like a liquid medium. And then light through the Aether, a liquid like medium.

And all these interpretations have eventually lost favor. Because they failed to adequately account for experimental results.

I hope I have upheld that the results from Young's Double Slit experiment as indeed accurate. And more importantly to the point I think my opponent was arguing is that the wave-particle duality interpretation of those results is the most accurate of all competing models.

[1] http://phys.org...
[2] http://arxiv.org...
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Read this article - http://jamesowenweatherall.com...
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
I think you were supposed to read the article.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
You have to define your definitions first.

What do you mean by erase?

What do you mean by delayed?

What type of detector did you use?

Definition of collapse?
Posted by Mhykiel 1 year ago
Mhykiel
Akhenaten the Delayed Erasure experiment shows that it is the information of the detector that does or does not collapse the wave function. NOT the presence of the detector. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
The detectors are nullifying the temporary particles forward moving wave creation. Thus, you don't get an interference pattern when you observe the so called 'particle'. The electromagnetic force coming from both sides destroys the outward moving waves which force it to go in a straight line, thus giving the impression of a particle.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
The detector is obviously interfering with the result, otherwise the experiment result wouldn't change. Thus, to say that the detector is not a factor would be illogical.

The problem is that spin is not considered by the experimenters. Spin torque is what creates the mass of the light wave. This gives the impression of a particle. It is only a temporary particle which is created and destroyed as the light wave moves forward.
Posted by Mhykiel 1 year ago
Mhykiel
I'll debate this with you. I think the dual split experiment and it's variants are the most amazing demonstrations of reality that there is. The results are with out a doubt 'true'.
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
Nobody's going to accept it because everybody who knows anything about the experiment knows its true.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Commenting so I am notified when the debate is over. I'm very interested in how you intend to prove your claim.
Posted by Lennoster 1 year ago
Lennoster
That's a hard one.
No votes have been placed for this debate.