Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, perhaps the lesson here is don't post articles you haven't yet read.
Here is the article I usually post when talking about this topic. Granted, it's Wikipedia, so you may merely dismiss it, but it contains a link to the original peer reviewed paper if you're so inclined, and other info is available should you desire to do your own research.
Briefly, the experiment, done by Dr. Yoon-Ho Kim, et al, was designed so that for roughly half the photons, the "which slit" information is recorded and known, and for the other half it's recorded, but that data is destroyed and both unknown as well as unknowable.
There are 4 detectors the entangled "idler" proton could arrive at. If it arrives at D1 or D2, it's unknown which slit the "signal" proton went through. If it arrives at D3, it went through Slit B. If it arrives at D4, it went through Slit A.
When the signal photons are separated based upon which detector their idler photon arrived at, those whose idler ended up at 1 or 2 form an interference pattern. Those whose idler photons arrived at 3 or 4 did not.
The other paper I linked to seemed to indicate that though the polarity shift of the proton made the availability of the "which slit" data hypothetically available, it did not seem it was recorded in any way. Based upon the results of Kim's experiment, it should have shown an interference pattern. I cannot explain the seeming discrepancy, but I give more credibility to Dr. Kim than to an experiment that appears to have been done by students. In either case, the results are incompatible with each other, or I've misread, or misinterpreted the SUNY document.
That said, the really interesting thing about Kim's experiment was that it was specifically designed so that the idler photons arrived at whichever detector they arrived at AFTER the signal photon arrived, meaning the "unknown" slit signal photons formed an interference pattern PRIOR to the information that they went through an unknown slit was available, and the known slit signal photons failed to create an interference pattern PRIOR to that info being available as well.
There is no known explanation for that, but it fits the simulation theory quite nicely. (A simulation would calculate future likely events ahead of time, meaning it "knew" at the time the signal photos arrived where the idler photons were going to go as the "randomness" had already been calculated. It also exists outside of our "time" so it's very likely that before and after here have no real meaning there.)
In addition, there is a paper due in June that, if accurate, may well just show that consciousness itself can impact the results of the experiment. You can read the abstract here, though I myself have no idea if it's credible, and the paper itself is not yet out.
What about your theory would predict the specific difference in result between them in a way superior to quantum theory in a real universe?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question.
The digital simulation theory explains the behavior of the double slit experiment. When you run the experiment, you get different results based upon whether or not you measure which slit. That would be the predicted behavior under the following assumptions:
- Our "reality" is a simulation.
- It only renders things that need to be rendered, when they need to be rendered. (Logical, conservation of resources. It makes no sense to render things not under observation.)
- Once rendered, it must observe the laws of physics.
Quote:
What about a simulation would predict photon entanglement?
I did not say it predicts entanglement, I said entanglement is indicative of a simulation. Entangled bits violate relativity. If I move 2 entangled entities 1 light year away from each other, and the reverse the spin on one, the other will instantly reflect that, implying somehow that information had traveled faster than light, which is impossible.
It's amazing how creationists continually ignore all evidence that their little bubble of creationism has no substance.
It's amazing how you continue to deny anything that is evidence, so long as doesn't benefit you. I know of other posters here who regularly have links for articles that you either don't care to read or dismiss right off the bat.
"Peer Review" is the gold standard for liberals claiming they know science.
The only science liberals talk about is global warming and evolution.
The both bore the crap out of me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCalifornianWriter
It's amazing how you continue to deny anything that is evidence, so long as doesn't benefit you. I know of other posters here who regularly have links for articles that you either don't care to read or dismiss right off the bat.
It's amazing how you continue to deny anything that is evidence, so long as doesn't benefit you. I know of other posters here who regularly have links for articles that you either don't care to read or dismiss right off the bat.
I know not of what links you speak, but any link that supports biblical creationism is by definition bunk. The entire story has been falsified. The creation story told of in the bible simply did not happen.
It's amazing how you continue to deny anything that is evidence, so long as doesn't benefit you. I know of other posters here who regularly have links for articles that you either don't care to read or dismiss right off the bat.
the bible and greek mythology
Quote:
The similarities are so parallel one must wonder as to the actual origin of these stories. They had to come from somewhere. If the Bible holds so many similarities to Greek and Roman mythology, it causes one to question the actual relevance of the Bible. Christians believed and still believe to this day that those who worship other gods are heretical and pagan. Although Christians refuse to accept that these stories are not historical accounts written by God through man, one cannot discount the likeness of both the stories of the Greek Gods and that of the Bible. Christians may have to see that their beliefs may be more similar to Ancient Greek beliefs than what was previously thought. A historian cannot look past the facts, all of which are written in a book cherished by so many. The historian can prove that the fall of Rome was credited partly to the rise of Christianity, and the Christianity that we know today had to start from somewhere. One may even go so far as to say the stories in the bible are stories of Greek mythology changed to suit the belief system of new religion; Christianity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
