5 ms·
Well since we still don't have any great explaination for the 200 year old double slit experiment, how do you know it is photons moving around? Could be star si
by kopo 8y ago
Well since we still don't have any great explaination for the 200 year old double slit experiment, how do you know it is photons moving around? Could be star sized tsunami waves of light trashing about collapsing into photons when finally measured.
- jcims 8y agoThat's even cooler, photons popping into existence like whitecaps on a wave as the energy coalesces to a point after travelling independently for hundreds of billions of miles.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoA detected photon is just a wavefunction that isn't there any more.
- lmm 8y agoIt's just a wavefunction that your wavefunction is entangled with; it only looks like it isn't there because you're now inside rather than outside.
- abdullahkhalids 8y agoIn fact, we do have an explanation for it - its called quantum theory and it explains and predicts not only the double slit experiment but many other much more complicated phenomena.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoMeh. Predicts, yes. But I expect you could poll massive support for the proposition "the standard model is an accurate description of what happens, but not an explanation of why things would be like that".
- whatshisface 8y ago>Well since we still don't have any great explaination for the 200 year old double slit experiment I'm duty-bound to point out that this is only true in a philosophical, interpretive sense based on the aesthetics of explanations. Scientifically it's completely understood.
- ISL 8y agoWe can only predict the outcome of the double-slit experiment. We do not know how that outcome comes to be, nor do we know "why" the rules are the rules.
- Retric 8y agoWhy can be a rather unscientific question. As long as the observation matches reality the just so story used is rather meaningless.
- abdullahkhalids 8y agoI think you are asking for answers beyond what science can offer. Our current understanding of mathematics and logic suggest that every scientific theory will always have some axioms that we will have to take on "faith". Moreover, contrary to popular belief, science is process of eliminating the false theories leaving behind a set of _possibly true_ theories. Our current understanding of the philosophy of science suggests that we will never be able to infer the "true" laws of the universe. How can you answer the "why" if you don't even know if the current physical laws are the "true" ones. Science is just a way of compressing what we perceive with our senses into compact descriptions that our easy to memorize and understand by human beings. That is all. In the words of Neil Bohr, "Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience.".
- whatshisface 8y ago>Our current understanding of mathematics and logic suggest that every scientific theory will always have some axioms that we will have to take on "faith". I don't think this is true. The axioms can be testable, in which case you can do a little better than faith and say that "well, this is how it seems to work." For example I could have a theory that when I press the gas pedal my car moves forwards. Later on I could discover another theory that explains why that theory is true, but in the meantime I'm better than faith but worse than complete fundamental knowledge. That's where physics is - if we had complete fundamental knowledge many of us would go home, having nothing left to do.
- andrepd 8y agoAs a matter of fact we do have, and it's quite understandable by anyone with an understanding of high-school physics if you can spare a few (<10) hours to study.