DSE and casimir effect

Far from being empty, modern physics assumes that a vacuum is full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves that can never be completely eliminated.

How can the double slit experiment be a valid experiment if photons are popping in and out of existence and can never be completely eliminated?

You really shouldn't make such idiotic posts like this as if you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't. You really should stop commenting about things that you don't understand. Your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by humy
You really shouldn't make such idiotic posts like this as if you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't. You really should stop commenting about things that you don't understand. Your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Queen assumption has spoken. 🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Far from being empty, modern physics assumes that a vacuum is full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves that can never be completely eliminated.

How can the double slit experiment be a valid experiment if photons are popping in and out of existence and can never be completely eliminated?

Do you know about the part where a near infinite amount of electromagnetic waves can co-exist in the same space with little or no interaction with each other? If you have two tennis ball meeting after being hit, the course they take will alter depending on the angle of attack, mass of the balls, velocity of the balls and so forth.

Two laser beams meeting will have no such interaction. They pass through each other like they were not there.

Originally posted by humy
You really shouldn't make such idiotic posts like this as if you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't. You really should stop commenting about things that you don't understand. Your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

To be fair, he is asking a question, which would be prudent if you don't understand something, but wish to learn. You kind of ejaculated prematurely here. 😕

Not that I can blame you, given your posting history with him.

Originally posted by C Hess
...which would be prudent if you don't understand something, but wish to learn. .

Arr, but DOES he wish to learn? Somehow, I think not. If he had genuine desire to learn, I find it strange he didn't do some extremely basic background learning such as from just trying to learn what one can from the links, just enough to, at the very least, make sure his question makes enough sense so that answering it could potentially give some insight to a layperson.

Perhaps a learning strategy could go something like:

first read some links about it and try and understand it by yourself the best you can until you get so stuck with understanding part of it that you feel you must give up and ask expert advice on that part of the link you don't understand. Then go to a science forum and state which part of the link you don't understand and try your very best to explain exactly which aspect of it you don't understand -and be as specific as you can. And then ask a question so carefully designed so that answering it should hopefully explain to you the bit of the link you are stuck on.

This is the learning strategy I personally generally use.

But this is clearly not what he has done here. He just spoke idiotically of "..waves that can never be completely eliminated.." ; what the hell is he talking about? I think he just made that bit of nonsense up in a vain attempt to condescendingly make it sound that he knows something about physics we scientists don't.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Far from being empty, modern physics assumes that a vacuum is full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves that can never be completely eliminated.

How can the double slit experiment be a valid experiment if photons are popping in and out of existence and can never be completely eliminated?

The interference pattern you get in the double slit experiment applies generally to wave phenomena. You don't need to invoke the quantization of electromagnetic fields to explain it. I don't understand what you mean by "valid experiment" - one does the experiment, and then you explain what you measure using a model.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't understand what you mean by "valid experiment" .

neither does anyone else. He talks gibberish, as usual. If there is a "valid experiment", what would be an "invalid experiment" mean then? One that we are not allowed to do? If so, why are we not allowed to do it? According to what principle of science/logic or according to who or what exactly? As usual, and certainly not just because of the above, he makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The interference pattern you get in the double slit experiment applies generally to wave phenomena. You don't need to invoke the quantization of electromagnetic fields to explain it. I don't understand what you mean by "valid experiment" - one does the experiment, and then you explain what you measure using a model.

When one photon goes though one slit but not the other there is still a wave pattern in part of the experiment. My point is that if photons pop into existence and pass though the slit and pop out of existence before hitting the metal plate it appears there was no photon when there was at some point. It is pointless to say there was only one photon when you can't tell.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
When one photon goes though one slit but not the other there is still a wave pattern in part of the experiment. My point is that if photons pop into existence and pass though the slit and pop out of existence before hitting the metal plate it appears there was no photon when there was at some point. It is pointless to say there was only one photon when you can't tell.

It is not accurate to say that a photon "goes through one slit but not the other."

Virtual particles will not appear on any photographic plate. They should be considered as a convenient analogy to paint an intuitive picture of what the mathematics tells us.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It is not accurate to say that a photon "goes through one slit but not the other."

Virtual particles will not appear on any photographic plate. They should be considered as a convenient analogy to paint an intuitive picture of what the mathematics tells us.

This shows just how little he actually understands of the physics of the experiment he makes out to understand.
He obviously hasn't even yet gone so far as to just understood the extremely fundamental concept of wave-particle duality in relation to the slit experiment let alone understanding the Copenhagen interpretation verses realist interpretations (such as the Broglie-Bohm theory pilot wave interpretation ) debate. We are all simply light-years ahead of him in understanding it. He simply doesn't understand any of it and simply doesn't know what he is talking about and yet either, and I don't know which of these two, has the arrogant deletion to think he actually understand what he is talking about here and at least as good as if not better than us scientists, or condescendingly pretends to in a vain ineffective attempt to make himself look clever when he actually just exposes himself to be anything but clever -extremely foolish actually.

My criticism of him is not that he doesn't understand it (intrinsically no shame whatsoever in not understanding it, I think ) but rather he makes out that he does when he very clearly doesn't and not just with this scientific subject but all of them.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It is not accurate to say that a photon "goes through one slit but not the other."

Virtual particles will not appear on any photographic plate. They should be considered as a convenient analogy to paint an intuitive picture of what the mathematics tells us.

"It is not accurate to say that a photon "goes through one slit but not the other."

I didn't read wrong. I don't think we are talking about the same thing. You are obviously confused.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"It is not accurate to say that a photon "goes through one slit but not the other."

I didn't read wrong. .

Didn't "read" what wrong? It is YOU who erroneously said "When one photon goes though one slit but not the other ..." which, with the simplest version of the experiment with no photon detectors at the slits, is not only wrong but shows you don't understand the physics of that experiment at all. It might only be meaningful to say "When one photon goes though one slit but not the other ..." if the photon was detected coming out of that one slit with a photon detector positioned in such a way as giving that detected photon no chance to form an interference effect from the other slit; but then that wouldn't be the simplest version of the double slit experiment and would be irrelevant to that version of the experiment.

In fact, one of the main 'points' (if that is the correct word for it ) of the double slit experiment is that, assuming it isn't a more complex version of the experiment with some photon detection at the slits, it is said to show that you CANNOT correctly say the photon in that experiment went through one of the slits and not the other! I don't mean you cannot merely determine which slit it when through; I mean it is incorrect to say it went through one but not the other even if you also say you don't know which slit it went through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
"...A well-known gedanken experiment predicts that if particle detectors are positioned at the slits, showing through which slit a photon goes, the interference pattern will disappear..."

And this has been confirmed to be the case and is the case because you only get an interference effect from those photons you don't detect at the slits and it is not correct to say any of those photons not detected at the slits went through one slit and not the other.

You are obviously confused.

There you go yet again; condescendingly making out you understand the physics better than us scientists when clearly you don't. He and other scientists here are not the ones who are confused about the physics. It is you who are confused about the physics. Please, at the very least, LEARN the physics before trying to tell us something about physics.

Originally posted by humy
Didn't "read" what wrong? It is YOU who erroneously said "When one photon goes though one slit but not the other ..." which, with the simplest version of the experiment with no photon detectors at the slits, is not only wrong but shows you don't understand the physics of that experiment at all. It might only be meaningful to say "When one photon goes though on ...[text shortened]... . Please, at the very least, LEARN the physics before trying to tell us something about physics.

misprint:
"I don't mean you cannot merely determine which slit it when through;"
should be:
"I don't mean you cannot merely determine which slit it went through;

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"It is not accurate to say that a photon "goes through one slit but not the other."

I didn't read wrong. I don't think we are talking about the same thing. You are obviously confused.

Obviously.