 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I hadn't heard of that one, but it makes perfect sense in a topology
>> context.
>> In that context "split" really means a 1:2 mapping of spaces.
>> Cut the ball in half, then in the two hemispheres the new equator plane
>> is a curve from the lip that follows a 0.5*y scaled sphere, from there
>> just map the curved planes back to flat to get two spheres.
>> Since we're talking about a mapping, not a real object, there's no
>> conservation of volume, a sphere is a sphere, no matter what the size.
>
> That doesn't work. The volume of the sphere cannot be modified by a
> simple change in topology. You cannot simply change the topology and
> then calculate the volume as if you hadn't. You have to calculate the
> volume using the *new* topology, not the old one.
Well, the volume is half for the new spheres, but there is a 1:1 mapping
from each of the new spheres to the original.
> Besides, if what you say was true, the same trick would work with a
> 2-dimensional circle, but it has been proven that it doesn't.
The same slicing should work with circles, what did who
disprove where?
> And besides, the original setup happens in regular cartesian coordinates,
> without any change in topology.
>
>> The paradox is that the more mathematicians learn,
>> the less they are able to explain clearly.
>
> You clearly haven't understood the theorem.
Obviously you can't cut a mathematician's brain in half and
end up with two whole mathematicians, it's against the law =P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> So why does it interfere with itself when there are two slits but not
> when there is only one?
Actually, it doesn't interfere with itself if you measure some other
particle that was entangled with the particle that either did or didn't
go thru the two slits. So you don't have to touch that actual electron
at all.
If it was just one regular physical macroscopical
> particle it wouldn't matter how many slits there are: If it goes through
> one of them, it just goes through one of them, that's it. It doesn't even
> "know" that there are other slits.
> However, when there are two slits, the electron passes through and starts
> interfering with itself, as if it has passed through both and changed
> direction in different ways.
>
> How else can this be explained? How does the electron "know" that there's
> another slit so that it "knows" to start interfering with itself, other than
> actually going through the other slit as well?
>
> (I believe this has something to do with wave-particle duality: In the
> double-slit experiment the wave nature of the electron shows up: The wave
> goes through both slits and starts interfering with itself.)
>
>>> So you are saying that, even though the only possible explanation for
>>> interference patterns is that the electron passed through both slits,
>>> there's still no evidence of that?
>
>> Yes. What makes you think that the only *possible* explanation is that
>> the electron passed through both slits?
>
> What is the other explanation?
>
>>> If there's "no evidence", what do you call the interference pattern?
>>> "Non-evidence"?
>
>> Interference.
>
> The interference can be explained with the electron passing through both
> slits at the same time. Ergo the interference is evidence of that happening.
> (Note that "evidence" is not the same thing as "proof".)
>
--
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:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>>> Because time travel doesn't exist?
>
>> At the quantum level, it most certainly does.
>
> That would create paradoxes.
Incidentally, the fount of all wisdom (google+wikipedia) says you're
mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feinberg_reinterpretation_principle#Modern_interpretation:_Quantum_field_theory_and_causality
"""
Tachyons are prevented from violating causality by the Feinberg
reinterpretation principle[3] which states that a negative-energy
tachyon sent back in time in an attempt to violate causality can always
be reinterpreted as a positive-energy tachyon travelling forward in
time. This is because observers cannot distinguish between the emission
and absorption of tachyons. For a tachyon, there is no distinction
between the processes of emission and absorption, since there always
exists a sub-light velocity reference frame shift that alters the
temporal direction of the tachyon's world-line, which is not true for
bradyons or photons. The attempt to detect a tachyon from the future
(and violate causality) actually creates the same tachyon and sends it
forward in time. (which is causal) A tachyon detector will seem to
register tachyons in every possible detection model; in reality, the
tachyon "detector" is spontaneously emitting tachyons.
"""
As far as the other particles going back in time,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality
seems to have a decent explanation, altho I see that apparently people
have done something along the lines of explaining it otherwise.
--
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:
> So why does it interfere with itself when there are two slits but not
> when there is only one?
Actually, it doesn't interfere with itself when you look at some other
electron that hasn't gone through the apparatus at all. In other words,
looking at some other entangled electron controls whether *this*
electron interferes with itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment
Now, explain how you get the photon going thru one slit or both slits,
based on some other photon at a spacelike distance away from the other
equipment?
> However, when there are two slits, the electron passes through and starts
> interfering with itself, as if it has passed through both and changed
> direction in different ways.
"As if" is the operant term here.
> (I believe this has something to do with wave-particle duality: In the
> double-slit experiment the wave nature of the electron shows up: The wave
> goes through both slits and starts interfering with itself.)
But not if you look at some other entangled photon and measure something
irrelevant?
>> Yes. What makes you think that the only *possible* explanation is that
>> the electron passed through both slits?
>
> What is the other explanation?
Weren't you, btw, the one arguing that not having a competing theory for
evolution wasn't sufficient to dismiss evidence-free arguments against
theory of evolution?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> Well, the volume is half for the new spheres, but there is a 1:1 mapping
> from each of the new spheres to the original.
But the thing is, the Banach-Tarski paradox states that you can slice
the sphere into a finite amount of pieces and then, using translations
and rotations only you can construct two spheres of the same size.
Everything in cartesian coordinates. No topology changes.
Besides, your "1:1 mapping" doesn't double the volume of the sphere.
The Banach-Tarski paradox does.
> > Besides, if what you say was true, the same trick would work with a
> > 2-dimensional circle, but it has been proven that it doesn't.
> The same slicing should work with circles, what did who
> disprove where?
Just read the theorem.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Incidentally, the fount of all wisdom (google+wikipedia) says you're
> mistaken.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feinberg_reinterpretation_principle#Modern_interpretation:_Quantum_field_theory_and_causality
How much weight should be put into claims about hypothetical particles
for which there's absolutely no proof nor experimental evidence that
they exist?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >> 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?
No. A theory is a suggested explanation for a phenomenon, not just a
description of the phenomenon.
> 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.
You are equating a repeatable experiment with a theory. You are talking
about apples and oranges.
An experiment measures a phenomenon. A theory is a suggested explanation
of what causes that phenomenon.
> Your claim that it passes through both slits is untestable. We can
> never detect that it is doing this.
There are many theories which are untestable in practice. For example
the existence of the so-called cosmic horizon is, by definition, untestable.
(If we could go and see if the cosmic horizon indeed exists, it would not
be a cosmic horizon anymore, by the very definition of cosmic horizon.)
That doesn't make the theory any less of a theory.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Incidentally, it doesn't interfere with itself - I misspoke. It
> >> interferes with other electrons.
> >
> > What other electrons?
> The other electrons in the experiment. You don't get an interference
> pattern from a single electron - that's exactly why people say electrons
> are particles. You get an interference pattern when you average the
> probability of many electrons.
But the electrons are shot one at a time. They do not interfere with
each other. (And don't start talking about the time-travelling nonsense
again. That makes a million times less sense than the electron going
through both slits at the same time.)
> >> Sure, they only go through one at a
> >> time. What was that about time travel?
> >
> > The electron somehow magically knows that in the future more electrons
> > will be there and act accordingly?
> I don't know. Nobody knows. Except, apparently, you. :-)
If you don't know, why are you even suggesting it? It's absolutely
nonsensical. The electron passing through both slits (as a wave phenomenon)
at least makes a little bit of sense if you have read even a tiny bit about
quantum phenomena, even if it defies sense at the everyday macroscopic
level.
> > 1) The electron passes through both slits at the same time, interferes
> > with itself, and thus acts according to a logical mathematical formula.
> And yet, somehow, whenever you look, it only goes through one slit at a
> time. How does it know?
How can you "look" without interfering with the electron? Is there any
way of measuring the location of the electron without exerting some kind
of force or energy on it?
A wave which suddenly behaves like a particle when it's measured may
make little sense, but at least it makes more sense than time-travelling
electrons.
> > From these two you want me to choose number 2.
> Given the choice between a theory that has copious experimental evidence
> against it, and saying "we don't have a good theory", yes, picking "we
> don't have a good theory" is better.
You and your mythical "copious experimental evidence". The only evidence
which you have mentioned is that when the electron is measured, it behaves
like a particle (without even specifying how you can measure it without
affecting its properties).
It's a bit like someone saying "a car can travel even faster than
100 km/h" and then someone going to a parking lot and saying "no, that's
not true, look at all these dozens of cars which are not even moving!"
He has "copious evidence" against the claim, yes. That doesn't necessarily
make the claim untrue. It *is* possible for cars to not to move at all
*and* move at over 100 km/h. Neither phenomenon is negative proof of the
other.
> > but things like time travel are completely believable
> > and understandable.
> Checked to 15 decimal places or so.
Using hypothetical particles with no experimental evidence whatsoever
of their existence?
> > Your reasoning doesn't make too much sense to me.
> Common sense doesn't really apply to quantum electrodynamics.
Yet you are sure that the electron may be travelling in time, but it
certainly does not go through both slits at the same time.
> >> Every time you measure whether it went through both
> >> slits, the answer is "no, there was only one electron."
> >
> > Of course there was only one electron. And yes, measuring messes up
> > the electron. So what?
> If every time you measure whether it went through both slits, the answer
> is "no", why do you think it ever goes through both slits? Even if you
> measure after it has already passed through the slits?
Because it's a possible explanation for the interference pattern.
It may just be that when you measure it, you affect the electron and
it stops behaving like a wave. Why? I don't know. But it sounds less
nonsensical than time-travelling electrons.
> Quantum physics isn't intuitive. But you don't get to throw out
> experimental evidence just because you can't figure out *why* you get
> those results.
Who is throwing out experimental evidence?
I'm just saying that having a million cars that don't move doesn't
necessarily mean that cars can't move.
> How do you explain electrons going through both slits if, after it goes
> through the slits, you measure which slit it went through, and you
> always get the answer "only one"?
How many times do I have to repeat this?
> >> Your intuition is confusing you. How does it "know" there's a back
> >> surface to the glass and therefore needs to reflect differently? How
> >> does it "know" there's another electron already "on the way" to where
> >> it's going and hence that position needs to be avoided?
> >
> > What another electron? I don't understand.
> Electrons don't interfere with or cancel themselves out.
You act inconsistently. Sometimes you are all like "nobody knows,
quantum mechanics defies all sense, how can you be so sure?", and other
times you write absolutes as if you had perfect knowledge on the subject.
> >> Why is it a wave going through both slits but a particle by the time it
> >> gets to the detector?
> >
> > Why do quanta behave both like waves and particles? I don't know.
> > It just seems they do.
> Then why is it so hard to believe that's true even without it going thru
> both slits?
The wave going through both slits explains the interference pattern.
The wave going through one slit doesn't. That's why.
> >>>> Yes. What makes you think that the only *possible* explanation is that
> >>>> the electron passed through both slits?
> >>> What is the other explanation?
> >
> >> I don't know, and as far as I understand, nobody else does either. But
> >> all of the evidence so far suggests your interpretation is incorrect.
> >
> > *All* the evidence? Including the interference pattern?
> How do you know it went thru both slits? Every time you ask, it only
> goes through one slit. You're saying "the only way you can have an
> interference pattern is for every electron to go through both slits."
> That's an invalid inference.
And you are saying "every time you measure the electron, it's going
through only one of the slits, and the interference disappears, thus
the only explanation for this is that the interference pattern is not
caused by the electron going through both slits". I don't see that as
any more valid of an inference.
On the contrary, the fact that the interference pattern *disappears*
when you mess up with the electron (in other words, when you *make* it
go through one slit, it starts behaving like it's going through only
one slit) seems like a stronger evidence that it indeed is going through
both slits when it's not messed up with. If the electron could be
measured going through only one slit and the interference pattern would
still appear, *that* would be strong evidence that it's not going through
both slits and that the interference pattern is caused by something else.
> > How come a phenomenon which was evidence for the electron passing as
> > a wave through both slits has suddenly become evidence of the contrary?
> It hasn't. You are mistaken that the only possible explanation is that
> the electron is a wave as it passes through both slits.
I have never said it's the only *possible* explanation. I have said that
it's the only *existing* explanation. There's a categorical difference.
> > I don't know why measuring quanta messes up with their behavior.
> So do you believe in time travel or not? Because clearly the decision as
> to whether the electron went thru one slit or both is traveling back in
> time in this experiment, *if* that's what's happening.
Yeah, that's the only *possible* explanation, sure.
> >>> The interference can be explained with the electron passing through both
> >>> slits at the same time.
> >
> >> Yes.
> >
> > First you say that *all* evidence suggests that the claim is incorrect,
> > and now you admit that at least one piece of evidence doesn't.
> No. The interference can also be "explained" by God screwing with our
> heads, by intelligent electrons trying to confuse you, or by magic fairy
> dust. None of those are correct either.
Please don't start making straw mans. You are trying to make the
explanation sound ridiculous by comparing it to other ridiculous
"explanations".
> >> But that's also at odds with many other experiments. If the
> >> electron goes through both slits, why is it that you never see it go
> >> through both slits when you put a detector behind each slit?
> >
> > I don't know why measuring quanta messes up with their behavior.
> But you *do* know that they go through both slits. Interesting.
And you *do* know that they don't. Interesting.
> >> The sun rising can be explained by angels pushing it along, as well,
> > Or electrons travelling in time.
> Mmmmm. The sweet, sweet smell of assertive ignorance.
The sweet, sweet smell of a straw man.
> How come it's reasonable that time isn't comparable everywhere, but that
> subatomic particles can't travel in time?
Time going at different speeds at different locations is not the same
thing as time-travelling.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > What is the other explanation?
> Weren't you, btw, the one arguing that not having a competing theory for
> evolution wasn't sufficient to dismiss evidence-free arguments against
> theory of evolution?
I'm getting tired of your straw men.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> An electron is not an elementary particle
Really? And what is it composed of?
Sure, wikipedia may not always be right, but it doesn't know the concept
of the electron being composed of sub-particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
