L&FP, 65: So, you think you understand the double slit experiment? (HT, Q & BA77)

_{kairosfocus

February 5, 2023

Academic Freedom, Logic and Reason, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

So, here we go:

And, the rise of solid state laser pointers makes this sort of exercise so much easier, BUT YOU MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO GET SUCH A BRIGHT SOURCE INTO YOUR EYE AS THIS MAY CAUSE RETINAL BURNS THUS BLIND SPOTS. (I recall, buying and assembling a kit He-Ne laser to have this exercise for my High School students. We had a ball, using metre sticks stuck to a screen with blu-tack, to observe and measure effects from several metres away.)

So, now, what about, electrons:

Notice, the pattern here builds up statistically, one spot at a time.

Then, HT BA77 way back, here is Dr Quantum:

Now, if you think you have it all figured out, think again, and again, and again. KF

Comments

Vividbleau @196,
Finally when I look at just the factual experimental data I think of the fruit fly or nylonaze or bacteria, or finch beaks, etc. What does the actual experimental data show SO FAR? Change has limits. That poor ole fruit fly is still a fruit fly, bacteria are still bacteria, finches are still finches, change has limits.
Yeah, exactly. And we should see ALL living things in transition along with novel features in development, which we don't. What we see is dramatic one-generation changes due to epigenetic programming. Also, we see unlikely radical transitions such as with metamorphosis and alternation of generations (medusa and polyp, or as with sea lettuce: https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/seafood-profiles/sea-lettuce), and so on.
Then I noticed how abiogenesis is walled off from Darwin’s theory. Yes it is true that Darwin addressed how life changed over time after life originated however if life is originally a product of design then doesn’t that affect the mechanisms going forward?
Yeah, that's odd, isn't it? The debates I've seen usually put this difficult bit off-the-table right from the start. They also say that there's no evidence for OOL due to the rarity of fossils and soft body parts that don't lend themselves to fossilization. Yet researchers have found fossil sea jellies that appear very similar to modern ones, but they give them different biological classifications for some reason.
Prediction virtually every criticism of my post, if any, will appeal in one form or another to micro evolution as the evidence for both the mechanism and proof that any change is possible.
Early on, I noticed this position as an unwarranted extrapolation. At that time, it seemed more likely to me that Darwinistic evolution was only the "fine tuning" mechanism. Apparently, there's little evidence for even such fine tuning. Since then, It's seemed to me that extinction was an overlooked aspect in the diversity of life, and that what we observe would also fit a "comb model." 1. Imagine a long comb with 1,000 teeth, each slightly different from its neighbors. 2. Next imagine that 900 teeth are randomly broken off. 3. One could still reasonably assert that the result was evidence for an evolutionary tree rather than a comb. As for mutation as a driver for genetic change, we would need far more and far faster iterations of each generation. Thus, it would make far more sense from a Darwinian point of view that humans are the result of gut bacteria evolving an exoskeleton (our bodies) for effective distribution of feces comprising mostly gut bacteria. Not to mention that there are far more bacterial cells in and on a human than human cells. If each cell got to vote on it, humans would be considered a form of bacteria. -QQuerius_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Q 175 I took me longer than you to abandon Darwin’s theory because the overwhelming consensus by scientists that it was as settled a fact as the earth is round. When ever I started to doubt I would remind myself that all these Scientists could not be wrong after all they are scientists, then I happened to read a couple of books that opened my eyes so to speak. The first one was “Algreny” by Jeremy Rifkin that lead me to the second, Kuhns “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” and the third was “Darwin on Trial” by P Johnson. Darwin’s theory in its original form is that all of life is a result of trial and error (random mutation the error and natural selection the trial)then add extrapolation ( we see small changes therefore any change is possible). I also quickly learned how the word “evolution” is sometimes used to describe “micro evolution” then yielded as a cudgel that any change is possible “macro evolution” The first no one disputes, equivocate much? Then of course there is the assumption regarding the mechanism of change as Behe highlighted in his book “ Darwin’s Black Box”in discussing the fossil record. Does the fossil record tell us anything about mechanism? No. Does change tell us anything about mechanism? No. Are they both consistent with Darwin’s theory?Yes. Are they consistent with ID? Yes. Finally when I look at just the factual experimental data I think of the fruit fly or nylonaze or bacteria, or finch beaks, etc. What does the actual experimental data show SO FAR? Change has limits. That poor ole fruit fly is still a fruit fly, bacteria are still bacteria, finches are still finches, change has limits. Then I noticed how abiogenesis is walled off from Darwin’s theory. Yes it is true that Darwin addressed how life changed over time after life originated however if life is originally a product of design then doesn’t that affect the mechanisms going forward? Prediction virtually every criticism of my post, if any, will appeal in one form or another to micro evolution as the evidence for both the mechanism and proof that any change is possible. Vividvividbleau_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Relatd: Discuss what exactly? Your unwavering commitment to unguided evolution? You’ve made up your mind. We'll definitely just leave it at that then.JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

JVL at 193, Discuss what exactly? Your unwavering commitment to unguided evolution? You've made up your mind.relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Relatd: Unilateral disagreement is like unilateral disarmament. It doesn’t work. If you want to discuss things fine. Otherwise, we'll leave it at that then.JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

JVL at 191, Unilateral disagreement is like unilateral disarmament. It doesn't work.relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Relatd: You’ve made up your mind. And yes, the images didn’t brainwash me into believing dead chemicals can turn into any living thing. We'll just leave it at that then.JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

JVL at 187, You've made up your mind. And yes, the images didn't brainwash me into believing dead chemicals can turn into any living thing.relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Relatd: You’re wrong. Got that? You’re wrong. The data points to Intelligent Design not unguided monkey business. We'll just leave it at that then. And by the way, YOU have obviously made up your mind. We'll just leave it at that then.JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

JVL at 186, You're wrong. Got that? You're wrong. The data points to Intelligent Design not unguided monkey business. And by the way, YOU have obviously made up your mind.relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Relatd: I’ve been at this for a very long time. I’ve seen the data. Some took the time to post lengthy explanations with images in an attempt to “educate” me. That wasn’t their goal. Intelligent Design is the only plausible explanation. Unguided evolution – no. If you've already decided then perhaps we should just leave it. I mean if someone tried to use images and that didn't work.JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Relatd: You can’t. Living things are designed. Period. As opposed to Richard Dawkins who says they’re not. If you've made your mind up there's not much point in trying to have a discussion. Is there? I’m beginning to think GUILT is the problem here. The guilt you might experience, and others, about those godless, drug fueled orgies… I'd love to feel guilty about those except . . . I can't 'cause I didn't have them!JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Relatd: That’s an answer? It’s obvious. Any data for ID is false because, for you, evolution is true. And that must be repeated by you forever. I was just trying to quickly respond in a thread which has quickly generated a lot of traffic. I'm happy to discuss any particular data in depth if you wish.JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Asauber: Ah…see. This is an example of doing the very thing you complain about- mischaracterizing your opponent. I didn't say that.JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

JVL at 182, I've been at this for a very long time. I've seen the data. Some took the time to post lengthy explanations with images in an attempt to "educate" me. That wasn't their goal. Intelligent Design is the only plausible explanation. Unguided evolution - no. I never mentioned "conflict." I know both sides can't be right.relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Relatd: I want you to acknowledge that both sides can’t be right. Someone is wrong here. Why don't we look at the data instead of presupposing there is a conflict?JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

JVL at 179, You can't. Living things are designed. Period. As opposed to Richard Dawkins who says they're not. I'm beginning to think GUILT is the problem here. The guilt you might experience, and others, about those godless, drug fueled orgies...relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

JVL at 177, That's an answer? It's obvious. Any data for ID is false because, for you, evolution is true. And that must be repeated by you forever.relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Relatd: You have no testable science to show you are right. Or, to put it another way, you’re wrong. I don't think that is the case. How do I try and persuade you that you might be incorrect?JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

"it’s an article of faith that evolution is a failed theory" Ah...see. This is an example of doing the very thing you complain about- mischaracterizing your opponent. Andrewasauber_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Asauber: Why do you and I come to different conclusions when looking at the same stuff? Because we give more (or less weight) to certain aspects or implications of that data?JVL_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

"and the only reason why anyone promotes evolution is because we want to rationalize having our godless drug-fueled orgies." Gosh, I don't recall mentioning that last part - ever. But now that you bring it up...relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac @161,
For most people here, it’s an article of faith that evolution is a failed theory, that design theory is obviously true, and the only reason why anyone promotes evolution is because we want to rationalize having our godless drug-fueled orgies.
That's a little harsh. I used to believe in Darwinism, but lost the faith in it when I was in college. "Godless drug-fueled orgies" notwithstanding, the problem was with its contradictions and its not conforming to the scientific method as in my other scientific coursework. For example, when I took astrophysics, I was gratified that the course presented both the currently established theories, PLUS the unanswered questions and issues with them. Same with quantum physics. We were encouraged to challenge any of the theories and our professor delved into the evidence for them and how our objections were currently being explained. The honesty and desire not to be limited by pat answers and rationalizations was refreshing in comparison! We were interacting with the material, not being indoctrinated by the material or EVER being hysterically accused of being anti-science! -QQuerius_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

JVL at 160, I want you to acknowledge that both sides can't be right. Someone is wrong here.relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @168,
It’s not that we’re ignoring the data, but rather that our commitment to godless liberalism (or whatever) prevents us from actually seeing the data and following through on what the data entail . . . So we’re just not able to see the data for what it is.
Yes, exactly! And entirely a great post--thank you! -QQuerius_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Asouber @169,
It obvious that intelligent and thoughtful people come to a different conclusion. You are just repeating yourself. I’m intelligent and thoughtful and so are you. Why do you and I come to different conclusions when looking at the same stuff? What could be making the difference? Go ahead and list the possibilities.
A great question! I'm looking forward to JVL's intelligent and thoughtful response.
It’s not rocket or cosmetology science. lol
Haha! I thought the expression was "It's not rocket surgery or brain science." ;-) -QQuerius_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @75,
poof, vanished comment
After being burned on several occasions, I nearly always compose my comments in Word and then copy-paste them into the Comment field. This method protects me when WordPress randomly performs a quantum leap with my text, I've got my text entangled locally for rapid reinstantiation. ;-) -QQuerius_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

JVL at 158, You have no testable science to show you are right. Or, to put it another way, you're wrong.relatd_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

"Or are you willing to accept that maybe they are intelligent and thoughtful people who have come to a different conclusion from your own?" JVL, It obvious that intelligent and thoughtful people come to a different conclusion. You are just repeating yourself. I'm intelligent and thoughtful and so are you. Why do you and I come to different conclusions when looking at the same stuff? What could be making the difference? Go ahead and list the possibilities. It's not rocket or cosmetology science. lol Andrewasauber_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Because I disagree with you and you think the only possible way for me to disagree with you is to be dishonest and to ignore some of the data? Is that right?
It's not that we're ignoring the data, but rather that our commitment to godless liberalism (or whatever) prevents us from actually seeing the data and following through on what the data entail. The story is that we're ideologically motivated against the very idea of anything like God, because we like our drug-fueled orgies or babykilling or whatever. So we're just not able to see the data for what it is. If we could, we would just see that an intelligence of some kind is the only possible source of biological information -- that it's just not possible for life to emerge from physics and chemistry alone. We would just see that abiogenesis research is a massive fraud. But we don't, because we're self-deceived, and because we're ideologically motivated to be self-deceived. In other words, from their point of view, we don't deserve to be taken seriously. The fact that you're trying to take them seriously doesn't do anything to move the needle.PyrrhoManiac1_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply