 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Assuming the particle *is* at some specific location at any given time
> instead of being distributed in space.
That too. Note that's why I specified "when you look". It's easy to tell
whether an electron is in a particular place at a particular time when
you look. It's called, for example "Dynamic RAM." It's more difficult
to tell when you're not looking.
>> Yes, it can actually hit the other side of the Earth. It can also hit a
>> week before you shoot it. Very unlikely, but possible.
>
> I don't believe in the time travelling.
You're mistaken. Happens all the time (on a sufficiently small scale).
QED doesn't work if you don't take it into account. Plus, most (or all)
of QED is time-reversable. I.e., an electron going forward in time looks
just like a positron going backwards in time.
Indeed, given a photon travels at the speed of light, time must be
stopped. Yet, we know events happen during the lifetime of a photon. If
time is stopped (by Lorenz contraction), why would a photon ever
spontaneously change into something else?
> As for the location, I assume
> the probability of it hitting the other side of the Earth is so small that
> some physical constant prevents it.
Good to know. Your opinion has been noted and filed appropriately. ;-)
Seriously, there are (reputable) people who believe electrons are
fungible because it's all the same electron moving around in time and space.
--
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:
> Actually "quantum physics" means that everything is quantified.
Nobody has figured out for sure if space or time are quantified. Lots of
speculation, but nothing concrete, last I heard.
> there's a minimum amount of everything (for example electric charge and
> mass),
Nope. Electric charge, yes, but not mass. Photons will have mass
proportional to their frequency, and frequency isn't apparently quantified.
> 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. I'll grant that nobody has found something with half the charge
of a quark. :-)
> Waves are also quantified for the same reason: There's a minimum amount
> of amplitude, for example, and all amplitudes are integer multiples of
> that amount.
Well, if you're talking about frequency, as far as I understand, this
isn't true. There's no lower limit to the frequency of a photon, nor any
quantum levels thereof. Indeed, if you believe in General Relativity,
that'll tell you there's no quantum of frequency - look at a photon
climbing out of a gravity well.
Photons are quantified, but not frequencies. There's a minimum amount of
energy a collection of photons of a specific frequency can have, and
it's an integer multiple of the energy of one photon, but there's no
quantification between photons of different frequencies.
> These "quants" behave oddly. Sometimes they behave like particles,
> sometimes they behave like waves, and sometimes they behave like both
> at the same time. Different measurements of the exact same quant can
> show wildly different behavior in this respect. (One experiment will
> clearly show that light behaves like a wave and not like a stream of
> particles, while another experiment will show the exact opposite.)
You are out of date by several decades, I believe. That's how the math
works out, because the probabilities are two-dimensional. But you never
wind up measuring waves as such. Just probabilities of certain events
happening.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> I question the assertion that it's been disproven. I think only a
> certain class of hidden variables have been shown not to exist. (Local
> vs non-local?)
I believe you're correct. I overgeneralized.
There are no hidden variables whose state is transported slower than the
speed of light. Certainly if general relativity is wrong, there might be
hidden quantum variables.
--
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?
Here's another conceivable answer, btw:
The electron you shoot out second? It's the same electron you shot out
the first time. Since it knows whether the slit was open or not last
time, it knows whether to follow the probability distribution of a
1-slit or 2-slit experiment. Since either is random, the fact there's a
one-electron delay between the two cases isn't visible.
Now, why is that sillier than "it knows whether you're going to measure
which slit it went through after it has already gone through them"? :-)
--
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:
> Nope. Electric charge, yes, but not mass. Photons will have mass
> proportional to their frequency, and frequency isn't apparently quantified.
Define mass.
--
The next war will determine not what is right, but what is left.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.)
Maybe mass is quantified at the quantum level, since mass seems to be
related to gravity (as in, inertial mass seems to always equal
gravitational mass) and gravity hasn't found a quantum theory yet, sure.
But frequency isn't "and everything is an integer multiple of that
amount" kind of thing, as far as I know, right?
--
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:
> These "quants" behave oddly. Sometimes they behave like particles,
> sometimes they behave like waves, and sometimes they behave like both
> at the same time.
Actually, you might be confused because you're not being precise enough.
The way I think you want to think about it is this:
"Sometimes they behave like particles" means "in some experiments, we
get results whose mathematical formulation is isomorphic to the
whatever-they-ares being particles."
"Sometimes they behave like waves" means "in other experiments, we get
results whose mathematical formulation is isomorphic to the the behavior
of waves."
In particular, the times you see "behavior like waves" is when you stop
*measuring* "does it behave like a particle?" The times you see
"behavior like a particle" is when you stop *measuring* whether it
behaves like waves. But in each case, you're explicitly excluding some
of the behavior and not too unsurprisingly seeing the other behavior.
In other words, when you do the math, sometimes the results you get for
electrons are the same results as those you get for waves. That doesn't
mean electrons *are* waves, any more than it means that light behaving
like a wave needs a medium to "wave" in order to travel.
Sort of like a PRNG. Some experiments you do, it looks random. That
doesn't mean it's random. It just means you haven't seen the real thing,
and you haven't measured whether it's deterministic or not. But every
time you *do* measure whether it's deterministic, it looks like it is.
Every time you take a (good) PRNG and measure its statistical
properties, it looks random. Every time you start a (good) PRNG from the
same seed, you get the same values. That doesn't mean sometimes the PRNG
is deterministic and sometimes it isn't.
Sort of like General Relativity. You can predict which way a satellite
in outer space will go by assuming gravity is a force like muscular
exertion is a force. That doesn't mean gravity *is* a force - it just
has the same equations (modulo Lorenz contraction, of course).
> Different measurements of the exact same quant can
> show wildly different behavior in this respect.
"Exact same"? I didn't know you could tell electrons apart.
> (One experiment will
> clearly show that light behaves like a wave and not like a stream of
> particles, while another experiment will show the exact opposite.)
Yes. That doesn't mean sometimes it *is* a wave and sometimes it *is* a
particle. It means that sometimes the particle behaves in a way that can
be predicted with the same mathematical formulas that predict the
behavior of waves.
Plus, as I understand it, light as such doesn't have a specific
"frequency". The light source does, but not the photons themselves. But
I'll admit I'm probably very confused on this one. I.e., a photon isn't
"waving" as such while it travels, but you can tell frequency by looking
at the probability vectors of photons over time coming out of a source.
If there's anyone who can actually explain that better to a layman, I'd
love to hear it. :-)
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. You can set up a detector behind the two slits
that's too imprecise to tell you *which* slit the electron went through,
but can tell you it went through, and the two sets of detectors will
count approximately the same number of events. Hence, electrons don't
interfere with themselves in a wave-like manner. They just change the
probabilities of where they'll land, and the formula for that is the
same as the formula for a wave, and for the same reason - they're both
multiplications (and hence convolutions) of cyclic 2-dimensional values.
(Oh, and as for "half the charge of an electron", the one that boggles
my mind is spin-2 particles. A particle that's not symmetric when you
turn it 360 degrees, but is when you turn it 720?)
--
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,
Though quarks are supposed to have fractional charge.
>>> 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.)
>
Also not sure what Mueen means, but the m in E=mc^2 is the m that was
used by einstein. IIRC the current definition would require a division
by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). The old definition was certainly not quantified for
arbitrary velocities.
> Maybe mass is quantified at the quantum level, since mass seems to be
> related to gravity (as in, inertial mass seems to always equal
> gravitational mass) and gravity hasn't found a quantum theory yet, sure.
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.
> But frequency isn't "and everything is an integer multiple of that
> amount" kind of thing, as far as I know, right?
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Because time travel doesn't exist?
> At the quantum level, it most certainly does.
That would create paradoxes.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> One could simply explain this by saying
> that the presence of two slits causes the electron to act in a
> probabilistic manner - resulting in an interference pattern.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Incidentally, it doesn't interfere with itself - I misspoke. It
> interferes with other electrons.
What other electrons?
> 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?
> > 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 do you know?
I don't, but there seems to be just two alternatives:
1) The electron passes through both slits at the same time, interferes
with itself, and thus acts according to a logical mathematical formula.
2) Something completely unknown is happening which we can't even begin
to theoretize.
From these two you want me to choose number 2. Moreover, you seem to
be saying that an electron passing through two slits at the same time is
too hard to believe, but things like time travel are completely believable
and understandable. Your reasoning doesn't make too much sense to me.
> 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?
> You keep
> asserting this, with no evidence other than "I can't think of any other
> explanation", along with rejecting both evidence and other explanations.
You want me to believe some stories about time-travelling electrons
instead of thinking that the interference is simply caused by the
electron going through both slits as if it was a wave. Honestly, what
do you expect me to believe more, as a rational person?
> 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.
> 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.
> >> 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 come a phenomenon which was evidence for the electron passing as
a wave through both slits has suddenly become evidence of the contrary?
> For example, if you do the same thing with photons, wait for them to go
> thru the slits, and after they've already passed through, you either
> turn on or off the detector that says which slit they went through, you
> always see them only go through one slit when the detector is on, and
> always generate interference probabilities when the detector is off. How
> do you explain that?
I don't know why measuring quanta messes up with their behavior.
> > 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.
> 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.
> The sun rising can be explained by angels pushing it along, as well,
Or electrons travelling in time.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The electron you shoot out second? It's the same electron you shot out
> the first time.
And you insinuate *my* explanation makes no sense.
> Since it knows whether the slit was open or not last
> time, it knows whether to follow the probability distribution of a
> 1-slit or 2-slit experiment.
Yeah, electrons are sentient beings now, and have memory.
> Now, why is that sillier than "it knows whether you're going to measure
> which slit it went through after it has already gone through them"? :-)
Explain to me how would you measure the location of an electron without
affecting it in any way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Seriously, there are (reputable) people who believe electrons are
> fungible because it's all the same electron moving around in time and space.
Which does *not* go through the two slits at the same time. Everything
else is ok. The same electron being here and at the other side of the
Andromeda galaxy? No problem. Electrons travelling in time and acting
depending on what happens one week from now? No problem. The one and the
same electron being shot, detected in a photographic film, and then shot
again a minute later? No problem.
But an electron passing through two slits at the same time? Absolute
nonsense. Laughable even as a wild theory.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> > These "quants" behave oddly. Sometimes they behave like particles,
> > sometimes they behave like waves, and sometimes they behave like both
> > at the same time. Different measurements of the exact same quant can
> > show wildly different behavior in this respect. (One experiment will
> > clearly show that light behaves like a wave and not like a stream of
> > particles, while another experiment will show the exact opposite.)
> You are out of date by several decades, I believe.
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?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Also not sure what Mueen means, but the m in E=mc^2 is the m that was
> used by einstein. IIRC the current definition would require a division
> by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). The old definition was certainly not quantified for
> arbitrary velocities.
I really can't understand what you are talking about. The 'm' which
Einstein used (and others before him) is what is currently used. There's
no "current definition of m".
Don't confuse the 'm' in the E=mc^2 with 'm0' (m subscript zero), which
is the rest mass of an object. The 'm' in E=mc^2 is the relativistic mass,
and equal to m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That was the definition back then, and
that's the definition today. It hasn't changed.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Sort of like General Relativity. You can predict which way a satellite
> in outer space will go by assuming gravity is a force like muscular
> exertion is a force. That doesn't mean gravity *is* a force - it just
> has the same equations (modulo Lorenz contraction, of course).
Are you sure Lorentz contraction is enough to "fix" the regular
newtonian gravitation calculations using forces? Gravity wells mess
up with time as well.
> 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.
Besides, what would "cancelling itself" mean with an electron?
Wouldn't it mean that it just goes straight, because the forces cancel
each other, and thus don't affect the direction of the electron?
Certainly some electrons in the slit experiment go straight?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Because time travel doesn't exist?
>> At the quantum level, it most certainly does.
> That would create paradoxes.
And the reason you say this 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The electron you shoot out second? It's the same electron you shot out
>> the first time.
>
> And you insinuate *my* explanation makes no sense.
No. I'm just pointing out that your explanation isn't the only
*possible* one. You are discounting other explanations that, to *you*,
seem less likely, rather than doing any sort of experiment (or looking
up any of the experiments that countless others have done).
>> Since it knows whether the slit was open or not last
>> time, it knows whether to follow the probability distribution of a
>> 1-slit or 2-slit experiment.
>
> Yeah, electrons are sentient beings now, and have memory.
Hey, you're the one that makes them switch between waves and particles
after the fact.
>> Now, why is that sillier than "it knows whether you're going to measure
>> which slit it went through after it has already gone through them"? :-)
>
> Explain to me how would you measure the location of an electron without
> affecting it in any way.
By measuring it later in time than the property you're trying to detect.
How do you measure which slit (or both) the electron went through
without affecting it? You do so by putting detectors *after* the slit.
Do you think the electron can go thru both slits and then only affect
one detector, but only if there's two detectors instead of one?
--
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] 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.
>> 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. :-)
> 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?
> 2) Something completely unknown is happening which we can't even begin
> to theoretize.
Yes, that. Actually, lots of theories. Little progress.
That's what all the "brane" theory and string theory and all that is about.
> 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.
> Moreover, you seem to
> be saying that an electron passing through two slits at the same time is
> too hard to believe,
It's not too hard to believe. It's just counter to every experimental
measurement.
> but things like time travel are completely believable
> and understandable.
Checked to 15 decimal places or so.
> Your reasoning doesn't make too much sense to me.
Common sense doesn't really apply to quantum electrodynamics.
>
>> 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?
>> You keep
>> asserting this, with no evidence other than "I can't think of any other
>> explanation", along with rejecting both evidence and other explanations.
>
> You want me to believe some stories about time-travelling electrons
> instead of thinking that the interference is simply caused by the
> electron going through both slits as if it was a wave. Honestly, what
> do you expect me to believe more, as a rational person?
"You expect me to believe you could just pick up a lump of plastic, rub
your fingers on it, and magically communicate with someone on the other
side of the world? What kind of fool do you think I am?"
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.
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"?
>
>> 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. It's a
probability thing. One flip of a coin doesn't give you a result of "one
half head and one half tail."
>> 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?
>>>> 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.
> 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.
>> For example, if you do the same thing with photons, wait for them to go
>> thru the slits, and after they've already passed through, you either
>> turn on or off the detector that says which slit they went through, you
>> always see them only go through one slit when the detector is on, and
>> always generate interference probabilities when the detector is off. How
>> do you explain that?
>
> 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.
>>> 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.
How does one determine this? One does experiments that would have
different results if electrons were intelligent, or if fairies were
present, and which consistently find negative results. Welcome to science.
>> 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.
>> 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.
How come it's reasonable that time isn't comparable everywhere, but that
subatomic particles can't travel in time?
--
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:
> 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] nawazorg<<<<<<
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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] sanrrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > 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.
You are the one saying that wave interference somehow must imply that
sometimes it cancels itself out. That's just not true. Basic math.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
I'm not seeing a difference here. If a theory purports to explain what
is going on, then an experiment has to be performed to verify that
mechanism (not the original experiment). And thus theories are
equivalent to predicting the results of experiments.
We have Newton's theory of gravitation. It didn't explain how gravity
worked.
Einstein's special theory of relativity didn't explain much either - it
was just a framework that could duplicate some weird experimental
results - and predicted some more weird results. It didn't explain why
the speed of light is constant w.r.t. any observer, why it didn't need a
medium to travel, and why you have length contraction as you go faster.
The difference between a good theory and just any theory is that last
bit - not only can it match the result of known experiments, but it
suggests new experiments and predicts their results.
>> 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.
Many scientists think it does. Wikipedia definition (emphasis mine):
"In science a theory is a *testable* model of the manner of interaction
of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences
or observations of the same kind, and capable of being *tested* through
experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. "
--
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> 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.)
You're misreading him. He said that a single electron does not produce
an interference pattern (i.e. if you shoot only one electron). To get an
interference pattern, you need many electrons (even if shot one at a time).
>> 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.
Actually, he's not. He's merely saying it is a theory. His point is
that your belief has been tested and is questionable.
> 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
How are you making it go through one slit, when you measure it after
it has gone through it? Did the electron know in advance that you were
going to measure it?
>> 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.
Quote from you:
"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?"
--
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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
Mea culpa - you're right. Wonder how I got that wrong.
Nevertheless, the relevant point (which you omitted quoting), is that
particles with charge less than an electron exist.
--
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Nevertheless, the relevant point (which you omitted quoting), is that
> particles with charge less than an electron exist.
My relevant point was, however, that electric charges are quantified.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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?
Oh, perhaps just a touch more weight than your assertion about
paradoxes, I'd say?
--
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:
> 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.
Actually, a theory is a model that allows you to predict a wide range of
events accurately. "God did it" is an explanation but not a theory.
> An experiment measures a phenomenon. A theory is a suggested explanation
> of what causes that phenomenon.
Except that in physics (and most "hard" science), "explain" means
"provide enough information to predict."
> There are many theories which are untestable in practice. For example
> the existence of the so-called cosmic horizon is, by definition, untestable.
Nonsense. Unless you want to say the same of *every* horizon.
--
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] 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.
So?
> They do not interfere with each other.
How do you know?
> (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.)
OK. So explain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
>
>>>> 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?
What do you think I'm suggesting?
> 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.
OK. So explain how the electron decides, after it hits the screen,
whether to have gone through one slit or both slits? Certainly if
you're sure it's going through both slits, and time travel is nonsense,
explain how it can change its behavior based on something you change
after it has already been detected at the counter.
>>> 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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
> Is there any
> way of measuring the location of the electron without exerting some kind
> of force or energy on it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
> 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.
How about a particle that either "behaves like a wave" or "behaves like
a particle" depending on how you turn devices in the experiment after
you've already measured whether it behaved like a wave or a particle?
>>> 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".
What makes you think it's mythical? Do you really think physicists all
over the world haven't thought of these questions and tried to answer
them? That they went "Oh, it's both, depending on whether you look. Gee."
Note that it behaves as a particle if you *measure* it as a particle,
*after* it has already gone through one slit or two.
I don't see how you can say both "time travel is impossible" and "it
obviously has to go through both slits" and "it only goes through one
slit if you look at it after it went thru the slits". Your combinations
of incredulity seem contradictory.
> 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).
So, because I didn't spoon-feed you all the thousands of experiments
people have done, including those easy enough to do in high school, that
contradict your position, and you didn't bother to look at anything on
the web to see, then all those experiments and their results must be
mythical?
Sounds like "hey, it didn't crash for me. Must not really be a bug."
> 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's not how the experiments are done, tho. You're doing a great
disservice to scientists if you think they're too stupid to *try* to set
up an experiment where cars go faster than 100km/h.
Did someone say "hey, I can't measure the speed of light with a
stopwatch. Hence, it must be infinte"?
>>> 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?
No. Using electrons and photons.
News flash: Light doesn't always travel at the speed of light, either.
>>> 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.
Yes, because that's the experimental evidence that actually comes out
when you do the experiments.
>>>> 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.
But there are other possible explanations, and yours has evidence
against. Again, fairies pushing cars could be the explanation for their
movement. But every time you look for fairies, you fail to find them.
How is your assertion any different?
> It may just be that when you measure it, you affect the electron and
> it stops behaving like a wave.
It doesn't *stop* behaving like a wave. It *didn't* go through both
slits. You put the detector *after* the slits. You *never* see it go
through both when the detector is there.
How, without time travel, does the electron know it's going to hit a
detector after it has been through both slits? How does it know this,
even when the device that decides whether or not to turn on the detector
does so after the electron has gone through the slits?
> Why? I don't know. But it sounds less
> nonsensical than time-travelling electrons.
Explain delayed-choice quantum erasure, then, without sounding nonsensical.
>> 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?
You.
> I'm just saying that having a million cars that don't move doesn't
> necessarily mean that cars can't move.
And having a million cars without fairies in the back seat doesn't mean
there aren't any. Yet, absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence.
That's fundamental probability theory.
>> 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?
Until you actually answer the question I'm asking. The fact that
measuring which slit the electron went through *after* it has passed the
slits shouldn't affect whether it goes through one slit or both slits,
unless you're also willing to accept time travel, which you aren't.
I'm trying to get you to explain *why* the electron "goes through two
slits" when you don't look for it and "goes through one slit" when you
do look for it. The fact the interference disappears when you *see* it
only went through one slit is irrelevant to that question. It's a
result, not a cause.
>>>> 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.
I didn't say it defies all sense. I said it defies common sense, which
is what you're trying to apply. I know electrons don't interfere with
themselves because I can do experiments showing interference patterns
without losing electrons.
The electrons go different places based on whether you know where
they've been or not. That doesn't make them waves.
>>>> 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.
But it *does*. That's what you're missing.
OK, so what's an electron waving, if it's a wave? You use the term
"wave" like it's well-defined.
>> 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.
You're conflating cause and effect.
> 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,
How am I making it go through one slit? I'm measuring it *after* it goes
through the 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.
How does something on the far side of the slit, in the future, affect
whether the electron went through one slit or both? How does measuring
a second electron *after* the first has already been detected at the
screen affect whether the first electron went through one slit or both?
> 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.
Except that it doesn't explain anything, because you've added in time
travel.
>>> 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
Explain this otherwise.
>>>>> 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".
"The particle knows when it gets to the screen whether in the future
you're going to measure whether it went through both slits or only one,
and if you're going to measure, decides to only go through one."
Not sure how to make that sound less ridiculous. Help me out?
>>>> 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.
Yeah, cool, isn't it?
>> 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
And Event A happens before Event B *and* Event B happens before Event A,
depending on where you happen to be standing? That "reasonable" and
"common sense"?
--
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] 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.
It wasn't a straw man. It was a question. There is none, zero, zilch
evidence of an electron ever being in two places at once. If you think
an interference pattern shows this, you're mistaken.
--
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:
> My relevant point was, however, that electric charges are quantified.
But not every quantity is like that. Three are, three aren't, basically.
And while a positron with +3/3'rds charge appears to be fundamental, a
proton with +3/3rds charge appears not to be. Which kind of opens up
some obvious questions about fundamentalness.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
