 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But an electron passing through two slits at the same time? Absolute
> nonsense. Laughable even as a wild theory.
No, it's not a wild theory. It's just a disproven theory. As in, lots of
evidence against it. The "there's only one electron" is a wild theory.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I have still not heard if the experiment to do gravitational experiments
> with anti-hydrogen (anti-proton with positron) did succeed, but I left
> the field some time ago.
I *did* hear where they managed experimental evidence that the speed of
gravity is at most twice the speed of light, and likely the speed of
light exactly. Which I thought was cool.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's not an explanation. You are not telling what exactly is it
> with the two slits that causes the interference pattern, you are just
> telling that when there are two slits, there is an interference pattern.
> Thus you are not explaining anything, you are simply stating the result
> of the experiment.
Precisely. It's a descriptive formalism. AFAIK, physicists simply don't
know what is going on, and nor are they sure there is any more to it
than the above.
>> And, AFAIK, that's the best explanation there is.
>
> Except that it's not an explanation at all. It's simply stating the
> result of the experiment.
Isn't that what a theory is?
A theory is not a theory if it is not testable. My "explanation" is
testable. If you do the experiment tomorrow, my description will hold true.
Your claim that it passes through both slits is untestable. We can
never detect that it is doing this.
>> And detecting which slit an electron passes through is also evidence
>> that it isn't passing through both slits.
>
> It's only evidence that measurements mess up with the electron. It
> doesn't explain the reason for the interference pattern.
And that there is an interference pattern does not explain how many
slits the wave passed through.
--
A closed mouth gathers no feet...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Except that the electron is an elementary particle, with no known
> subdivision into smaller components. And, as far as I know, the charge
> of an electron is the smallest known charge.
Yet, oddly enough, the proton seems to be composed of three quarks each
with some charge, and has the same charge as an electron. You know, a
really fast google on "quark charge" turns up
http://education.jlab.org/qa/quark_05.html
Now, given that electrons seem to be elementary particles, and quarks
seem to have a partial charge compared to electrons, there's some mighty
funky stuff going on with charge there.
> You are saying that all experiments which show light as behaving like
> a wave and the experiments showing it behaving like a stream of particles
> are wrong?
No. I'm saying that your phrase "like a wave" is too imprecise to be
worth talking about. Define "like".
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Are you sure Lorentz contraction is enough to "fix" the regular
> newtonian gravitation calculations using forces? Gravity wells mess
> up with time as well.
It was an analogy. Don't push it too far.
>> Note that a single electron does *not* interfere with itself in the same
>> way a wave does. If it did, it would cancel itself out sometimes, and
>> that doesn't happen.
>
> Two waves with the same frequency interfering each other don't
> necessarily cancel each other at any moment.
No matter how you arrange it, the number of electrons matches up, even
if there are places where no measurable number of electrons get found.
> Besides, what would "cancelling itself" mean with an electron?
I don't know. You're the one saying the electron interferes with
*itself*. In spite of the fact that it never seems to interfere with
itself to zero.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>>>> There is a non-zero probability that this can happen.
>>> I bet the probability is so small that it hits the barrier of some
>>> physical constant (Planck maybe?)
>
>> I'm not sure what that means. Probability is a mathematical construct -
>> not beholden to physical constants.
>
> Electrons are physical particles, not mathematical constructs.
Yes, but probabilities of electrons doing something are mathematical
constructs.
If I calculate the probability of an event occurring to be much smaller
than any physical constant, it can still happen tomorrow.
--
A closed mouth gathers no feet...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> and everything is an integer multiple of that amount. You just can't
>>> have eg. half of the electric charge of an electron, for example.
>
>> Uh, yeah, you can, but that's because they found smaller things like
>> quarks.
>
> Except that the electron is an elementary particle, with no known
> subdivision into smaller components. And, as far as I know, the charge
> of an electron is the smallest known charge.
Darren just told you otherwise. An electron is not an elementary
particle, and quarks can have smaller charges.
--
A closed mouth gathers no feet...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> You would be incorrect. Google on "Bell's Inequality".
Actually, here's a pretty easy to read description of one such
experiment, that I just happened to wander across while reading
something else:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/bells-theorem-n.html
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Nope. Electric charge, yes, but not mass. Photons will have mass
>>> proportional to their frequency, and frequency isn't apparently
>>> quantified.
>>
>> Define mass.
>
> E=mc^2? Isn't mass measured in electron-volts?
>
> Why? What's your point? (This isn't sarcastic. I don't know enough to
> know why someone who knows more would point out that I didn't define
> mass, or that my naive understanding of it isn't correct.)
The usual convention I've seen is to state that photons have momentum,
not mass. A lot of physics textbooks (these days) don't talk about
relativistic mass or mass changing when one speeds up.
The original formalism by Einstein did have the mass changing.
I'm not saying your definition is inconsistent, but I think physicists
did not like the suggestion that a body gains more mass just by going
faster.
You can see a bit of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Controversy
I'm used to people meaning "rest mass" when they just say mass. And a
photon has 0 rest mass.
Doing a Google search, it seems people are divided as to what they call
"mass". For example, the American Institute of Physics page here
casually refers to the rest mass as simply mass:
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
Nothing deep - just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same
thing.
--
A closed mouth gathers no feet...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> Nope. Electric charge, yes, but not mass. Photons will have mass
>>>> proportional to their frequency, and frequency isn't apparently
>>>> quantified.
>>>
>>> Define mass.
>>
>> E=mc^2? Isn't mass measured in electron-volts?
>>
>> Why? What's your point? (This isn't sarcastic. I don't know enough to
>> know why someone who knows more would point out that I didn't define
>> mass, or that my naive understanding of it isn't correct.)
>
> The usual convention I've seen is to state that photons have
> momentum, not mass. A lot of physics textbooks (these days) don't talk
> about relativistic mass or mass changing when one speeds up.
Fair enough.
To be more precise in what I was saying, the amount of energy and hence
frequency of a photon is going to decrease in a smooth and
differentiable way as it climbs up out of a gravity well, according to
relativity as I understand it. Hence, not all quantities in "quantum
physics" have discontinuous integral values.
> physicists did not like the suggestion that a body gains more mass just
> by going faster.
That's OK. I also talk about how "big" a particle is. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
