Simon Roberts wrote:

> Also the double slit experiment is a conundrum because if the photon is
> detected at the aperture either before or after it passes then there is
> no pattern on the back screen. Can someone please tell me how a photon
> can be detected without preventing it from continuing or traveling to
> the back screen? What type of Technology detects a photon.

a detected is detected, and not travel. The others undetected are
traveling. And you are trying to apply macro_scale logic/mathematics to
quantum_scale. Which is wrong. Photon emission and detection is stochastic,
likely because the transition from quantum_scale to macro_scale and the
opposite.

Simon Roberts wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:22:13 PM UTC-5, Jules Scotti wrote:
>> Simon Roberts wrote:
>>
>> > Also the double slit experiment is a conundrum because if the photon
>> > is detected at the aperture either before or after it passes then
>> > there is no pattern on the back screen. Can someone please tell me
>> > how a photon can be detected without preventing it from continuing or
>> > traveling to the back screen? What type of Technology detects a
>> > photon.
>> a detected is detected, and not travel. The others undetected are
>> traveling. And you are trying to apply macro_scale logic/mathematics to
>> quantum_scale. Which is wrong. Photon emission and detection is
>> stochastic,
>> likely because the transition from quantum_scale to macro_scale and the
>> opposite.
> Can you please describe the transition of quantum to macro
> mathematically how single emissions combine to become macro?

that's the point, you can't *describe*. A describe is a macro_scale thing.
The most you can do is to compact the particles in "a body", making them
act as a macro_scale object. But inherently, they are still quantum. Which
you cannot "describe". You can make a story, which would, or not, appear
consistent, but you cannot "describe".

Simon Roberts wrote:

>> >> a detected is detected, and not travel. The others undetected are
>> >> traveling. And you are trying to apply macro_scale logic/mathematics
>> >> to quantum_scale. Which is wrong. Photon emission and detection is
>> >> stochastic,
>> >> likely because the transition from quantum_scale to macro_scale and
>> >> the opposite.
>> > Can you please describe the transition of quantum to macro
>> > mathematically how single emissions combine to become macro?
>> that's the point, you can't *describe*. A describe is a macro_scale
>> thing.
>> The most you can do is to compact the particles in "a body", making
>> them act as a macro_scale object. But inherently, they are still
>> quantum. Which you cannot "describe". You can make a story, which
>> would, or not, appear consistent, but you cannot "describe".
> I respectively disagree on the macro scale I believe they are described
> very well almost to the point of being lawful.

then you must be more intelligent than Bohr and Feynman, coming out with
*made_up_stories* about the quantum_scale. Which apparently made sense, but
were not understandable.

that's what this group needs, a poster smarter than Bohr and Feynman.