 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You are the one saying that wave interference somehow must imply that
> sometimes it cancels itself out. That's just not true. Basic math.
Except there *are* spots in the interference pattern between two slits
(if you place them properly) where no electron lands.
The electron isn't interfering with itself (or other electrons) in the
same way a wave interferes with itself. And there's no medium to be waving.
You're looking at a pattern of events, seeing that its mathematical
equation matches in some ways the mathematical equation of the height of
a wave, and you're saying "hence, the phenomenon must be a wave." There
are other things that also match the mathematical equation of a wave,
and those aren't waves either.
--
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:
> You're looking at a pattern of events, seeing that its mathematical
> equation matches in some ways the mathematical equation of the height of
> a wave, and you're saying "hence, the phenomenon must be a wave."
More specifically, it's not that the electron interferes with itself.
It's that there's an interference-like pattern (i.e., a convolution) in
the *probability* that an electron goes to a specific place.
The electron isn't a wave, because you don't see a wave even when there
*is* an interference pattern. Instead, you see an interference pattern
in the *probabilities* that an electron will show up at some particular
point on the screen.
The electron always shows up at one point, every time you measure it,
including when it has "been through both slits". You never, ever see
an "electron wave" even when both slits are open and you're getting
"interference". The interference of the electron isn't with itself. The
"interference" pattern comes from the probability of the electron being
at one place convolving with the probability of the electron being at
other places.
An electron isn't a wave. It shares none of the properties of waves.
A whole bunch of electrons share a bunch of properties that waves have.
That doesn't make individual electrons waves any more than it make
individual water molecules waves.
--
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:
> You and your mythical "copious experimental evidence". The only evidence
> which you have mentioned is
Or, or a better-written opinion on this concept...
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/conjunction-con.html
"""
I emphasize this, because it seems that when I talk about biases
(especially to audiences not previously familiar with the field), a lot
of people want to be charitable to experimental subjects. But it is not
only experimental subjects who deserve charity. Scientists can also be
unstupid. Someone else has already thought of your alternative
interpretation. Someone else has already devised an experiment to test
it. Maybe more than one. Maybe more than twenty.
A blank map is not a blank territory; if you don't know whether someone
has tested it, that doesn't mean no one has tested it. This is not a
hunter-gatherer tribe of two hundred people, where if you do not know a
thing, then probably no one in your tribe knows. There are six billion
people in the world, and no one can say with certitude that science does
not know a thing; there is too much science. Absence of such evidence
is only extremely weak evidence of absence. So do not mistake your
ignorance of whether an alternative interpretation has been tested, for
the positive knowledge that no one has tested it. Be charitable to
scientists too. Do not say, "I bet what really happened was X", but
ask, "Which experiments discriminated between the standard
interpretation versus X?"
"""
--
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:
> not know a thing; there is too much science. Absence of such evidence
> is only extremely weak evidence of absence. So do not mistake your
Note that you're quoting this, and it's contradicting your statement in
this very same subthread.
I have to say that, quite unlike you, you've been somewhat unclear in
your position on this whole thing. I initially thought you were saying
time travel is a possible explanation, but you weren't saying that was
how it happened. IOW, you didn't know of any data contradicting that
theory, but you did that contradicted the notion that an electron went
through both slits.
But now I'm not sure - so let me ask explicitly:
1) Do you actually believe the time travel theory? If so, can you cite
experimental evidence supporting it? I have not yet looked at the links
you've provided thus far, but will later.
2) My view, as stated earlier, is that we have a formalism that
accurately describes the results, but does not address (or care about)
questions such as whether particles traveling through time or go through
two slits. My understanding (based on what is typically taught in
introductory grad courses on QM - I've not studied QED or anything more
advanced) was that this is still the "state of the art". There may be
interpretations that explain things further, but none that have been
well tested enough to put serious stock into it. If you know otherwise,
I'd love to read about them.
--
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:
> My relevant point was, however, that electric charges are quantified.
I can accept that - I was merely correcting one assertion. However,
here is your original statement:
"Actually "quantum physics" means that everything is quantified. That
is, there's a minimum amount of everything (for example electric charge
and mass), 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."
I believe quantum physics asserts that a number of quantities are
quantized based on the *system* they're in. An example I often use and
as Darren pointed out is that of frequency. Frequency is a continuum.
You can also have any energy you desire - no matter how small. Just
create a photon with the corresponding frequency.
However, when you have a certain system, like a harmonic oscillator or
a finite/infinite well, the energies get quantized, with there being a
base energy - of which all energies are multiples. The important point
is that the base energy itself is not a fundamental quantity. If I
change the dimensions of the system slightly, that base energy will be
different.
Also, in case of a finite well, you can get a continuum of energy -
once the particle has more energy than the strength of the well. A free
particle can have any energy. We can quibble about whether a particle
can ever be truly free, but QM allows for this.
The notion of there being a fundamental unit of charge, etc, is, AFAIK,
a notion that exists independently of quantum mechanics. QM did not
introduce it, and nor is it fundamental to QM. In the original
formulation, and even as it is taught today, space is not quantized (not
sure if there is universal agreement on there being a fundamentally
small unit of space).
--
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:
> 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.
Confuse implies that I don't know what I am talking about, so be careful
with that word.
> The 'm' in E=mc^2 is the relativistic mass,
Correct.
> 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.
Not entirely true. If we talk about the mass of a particle we mean the
mass at rest, not the relativistic mass. Also when I studied physics we
did nearly always write m where you would claim that we should have used
m0. It is one of those cases where physicists are too lazy to use
subscripts (at the minor expense of having to write various powers of
that square root thing ;) ). The only time we used m0 is in exactly the
equation that you quoted. After that it was 'and from here on m means
the rest mass'. So we did write Einsteins formula as
E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and I still would do that, even if you think that
is wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I'm getting tired of your straw men.
> It wasn't a straw man. It was a question.
Yes, sure. When you accuse me of using straw men, that's always correct
(and no matter how much I try to explain my arguments, it doesn't change
the fact). When I accuse you of making straw men, that never is the case.
How convenient.
> 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.
I'm not the only one who has this "mistaken" notion. From the very
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment article itself
(emphasis mine):
"In the path integral formulation, a particle such as a photon takes
every possible path through space-time to get from point A to point B. In
the double-slit experiment, point A might be the emitter, and point B the
screen upon which the interference pattern appears, and a particle takes
every possible path, including paths ***through both slits at once***, to
get from A to B."
Ergo, I am not making this up.
(I'm not saying that's the correct explanation. Sure, it may be
incorrect. However, that's not really the point. I'm just saying that it
*is* an existing explanation, and one which makes even a little bit of
sense to me.)
As for what happens when a detector is added, the same paragraph continues
(still emphasis mine):
"When a detector is placed at one of the slits, ***the situation changes***,
and we now have a different point B. Point B is now at the detector, and a
new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality
there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no
double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > You are the one saying that wave interference somehow must imply that
> > sometimes it cancels itself out. That's just not true. Basic math.
> Except there *are* spots in the interference pattern between two slits
> (if you place them properly) where no electron lands.
> The electron isn't interfering with itself (or other electrons) in the
> same way a wave interferes with itself.
I honestly don't understand. It looks a lot to me like your two
consecutive paragraphs are saying the exact opposite things.
> And there's no medium to be waving.
Medium? Are we back to the luminiferous aether era? I thought it was
demonstrated almost a hundred years ago that waves don't necessarily
need a medium.
> You're looking at a pattern of events, seeing that its mathematical
> equation matches in some ways the mathematical equation of the height of
> a wave, and you're saying "hence, the phenomenon must be a wave."
Actually no. What I'm saying is "it behaves like a wave".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 1) Do you actually believe the time travel theory?
I believe that QED is time-invariant, such that there's nothing in the
math that can explain why time goes one way and not the other direction.
I.e., an electron going forward in time is precisely a positron going
backward in time. To call such "absurd" or "a creator of paradoxes" is
inaccurate.
I.e., you can't measure that something has gone back in time, but you
can't measure that something has gone forward in time either.
> 2) My view, as stated earlier, is that we have a formalism that
> accurately describes the results, but does not address (or care about)
> questions such as whether particles traveling through time or go through
> two slits.
I've seen lots of descriptions of experiments ruling out "going thru two
slits at once". The formalism, as I understand it, is that it goes thru
one slit or the other, but if you look at which slit it goes through,
you are now doing a different experiment so you get different results.
And that this is explained without any reference to "waves" or the
particle being in multiple places at once. (*Possibly* being in multiple
places at once, yes.) Of course, if you don't look, maybe it *is* in
multiple places at once, but then you didn't look, so asserting you have
the right (or only) explanation is not scientific.
--
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:
>>> You are the one saying that wave interference somehow must imply that
>>> sometimes it cancels itself out. That's just not true. Basic math.
>
>> Except there *are* spots in the interference pattern between two slits
>> (if you place them properly) where no electron lands.
>
>> The electron isn't interfering with itself (or other electrons) in the
>> same way a wave interferes with itself.
>
> I honestly don't understand. It looks a lot to me like your two
> consecutive paragraphs are saying the exact opposite things.
A wave interferes with itself by being in multiple places at the same
time, and it generates an interference pattern by having different
magnitudes at different places.
An electron "interferes with itself" by modifying the probability of
where it will be detected. It's always detected in a single place, and
it always has the same intensity.
A polynomial "interferes with itself" by doubling the number of tangents
of zero derivative when you convolve it with itself. A polynomial
doesn't need a medium in which to wave either, and isn't a "wave" in any
but the most informal sense of the word. But the same math applies to
waves of water as applies to the sine function multiplied by itself.
You're confusing "the electron is a wave" with "the probability that the
particle that is an electron is in a particular place is a wave." The
electron isn't a wave any more than a molecule of water in the ocean is
a wave. The wave describes where you'll find the molecules of water.
That doesn't make the molecules of water waves.
Does that help?
>> And there's no medium to be waving.
>
> Medium? Are we back to the luminiferous aether era? I thought it was
> demonstrated almost a hundred years ago that waves don't necessarily
> need a medium.
No. It was demonstrated that wave-like effects (i.e., actions whose
measures are isomorphic to waves mathematically speaking) can occur
where there isn't a medium. *If* you think light is waves, then it
doesn't need a medium. (More precisely, if it needs a medium, that
medium will be undetectable by virtue of Lorenz contraction.)
If you mean "in some cases, the same math describes both waves and
probabilities" when you say "the electron is a wave", then I'll agree
with you, but point out that you're oversimplifying.
>> You're looking at a pattern of events, seeing that its mathematical
>> equation matches in some ways the mathematical equation of the height of
>> a wave, and you're saying "hence, the phenomenon must be a wave."
>
> Actually no. What I'm saying is "it behaves like a wave".
The *probability* behaves much like a wave. The individual eletrons
don't. There's a resultant pattern of locations where the electrons land
which is different based on how you measure their path. That density of
electrons landing in a certain place is similar to the height a wave
would be there, were there a wave. But the *electron* isn't a wave - the
probability of it behaving in a particular way is wave-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:
> When I accuse you of making straw men, that never is the case.
> How convenient.
Well, to be a straw man, it has to be something I'm arguing against.
Maybe it's some other fallacy, but it isn't a straw man.
> "In the path integral formulation, a particle such as a photon takes
> every possible path through space-time to get from point A to point B. In
> the double-slit experiment, point A might be the emitter, and point B the
> screen upon which the interference pattern appears, and a particle takes
> every possible path, including paths ***through both slits at once***, to
> get from A to B."
Yes. It also take paths that go in circles, thru both slits, backwards
in time so it goes thru both slits multiple times at once, etc. It can
also split into multiple virtual particles that go thru both slits and
recombine into a single photon when it's done.
The "path integral formulation" is an infinite series of different ways
something can happen. The different paths each have a complex number
representing the likelihood of it happening. This number is based on
surprisingly few parameters (six, two of which are universal constants,
if I remember right). You get the probability of an event happening by
doing the normal probability math (multiplication is "and" and addition
is "or") on the complex numbers.
The math doesn't work (i.e., doesn't match experimental evidence) if you
assume photons can go thru both slits but can't go back in time.
I'm not saying you're making it up. I'm saying electrons aren't waves.
They don't go through both slits the same way a "wave" does. If they go
through both slits, it's by either going around in a circle, or by going
back in time (equivalent, turn into two virtual particles and then
happen to run into each other and recombine on the other side) so they
go thru each slit separately and then interact again. At no point are
they waves in the "water" sense of the word.
> "When a detector is placed at one of the slits, ***the situation changes***,
> and we now have a different point B. Point B is now at the detector, and a
> new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality
> there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no
> double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears."
Right. You integrate the paths up to the detection event, and the
probability is the magnitude of the square of the complex number. From
then on, it's normal real-valued probability calculations. In other
words, if you have event A is "electron leaves generator at time T1",
event C is "electron hits wall at time T3", then you take all the
possible ways that could happen, including the electron that is created
at T1 actually going to T5 (after T3) turning into two particles that
fly apart, bump into other particles, and smash back together again to
turn back into an electron, then back to T0 (before T1) and then to T3,
and add them together using complex addition. (That's the "path
integral". You can see why the math is hard.) Then you take the
magnitude of the square of the result, and that's the likelyhood that
"Electron leaves generator at T1 and hits wall at T3."
If you stick a detector in there and say "Electron leaves generator at
T1, is detected by the detector at T2, and hits wall at T3", then you
build the path integral for generator->detector, then for
detector->wall, and then you add up the magnitudes of the squares of the
path integrals. I.e., you use normal probability when you're talking
about "normal" events, rather than probability based on complex numbers.
Note that the retroactive quantum eraser has things like
leaves generator at T0
hits wall at T1
decides which slits to go thru at T2
--
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:
> I'm not the only one who has this "mistaken" notion. From the very
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment article itself
> (emphasis mine):
>
> "In the path integral formulation, a particle such as a photon takes
> every possible path through space-time to get from point A to point B. In
> the double-slit experiment, point A might be the emitter, and point B the
> screen upon which the interference pattern appears, and a particle takes
> every possible path, including paths ***through both slits at once***, to
> get from A to B."
And the preceding sentence is:
"(Feynman stresses that his formulation is merely a mathematical
description, not an attempt to describe some "real" process that we
cannot see.)"
--
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> And the preceding sentence is:
>
> "(Feynman stresses that his formulation is merely a mathematical
> description, not an attempt to describe some "real" process that we
> cannot see.)"
Yep. But Feynman says that about everything, including electrons.
Note that I'm not saying it's *really* time travel. I'm saying that
claiming time-travel creates paradoxes is unsupported, and claiming that
time travel is absurd is untrue.
For all we can tell, electrons get around by flapping their wings.
That's unsupported too.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48455450$1@news.povray.org>, m.n### [at] ieeeorg says...
> 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 - i
t
> 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, untest
able.
> > (If we could go and see if the cosmic horizon indeed exists, it would n
ot
> > 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. "
>
>
Not to quibble too much, but Warp is talking "Hypothesis", not "Theory",
and you are not really helping. A Theory has to be "supported by
evidence", a hypothesis is merely a possible explanation, whether
testable or not. Something doesn't become a "theory" until its not just
been tested, but provisionally passed such a test. Its still only a
hypothesis *until* you test it, and receive results that confirm that it
*can be* called a theory. That is why gravity gets the pass, in that you
can test "if" it exists and what it does, even if you don't have a
theory that really says "why" it does so, while, "I have invisible pink
unicorns in my garden", can't go past being a hypothesis, there being
no way to prove they exist, that they "do" anything, never mind why they
are there.
Its a distinction that gets rehashed about once a month on
scienceblogs.com when dealing with lay people and various alternate
reality wackos that equate "theory" with "hypothesis", and both with
"wild guess". If you want to talk the talk, lets not confuse the rubes
(or embolden the loonies), by using their sloppy definitions. ;)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48457419@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
You know, I had a thought. What if electrons have no "fixed" path as we
would think of it. I.e., their position tends to fluctuate, similar to
what you get with the cloud of them around an atom (hint, they don't
form shells, its just a useful analogy). Then, if the slits are wide
enough and at a distance "equal" to the effective maximum distance of
displacement that can happen in these fluctuations, multiple electrons
fired in close proximity "may" find themselves in situations where their
positions must be logically coincidence with one of the slits, and they
"would" interfere and generate a pattern. Even a single one may do so,
since it "could" in such a state pass through "both" at the same time,
or near enough that similar coincident effects could cause it to pass
through one perfectly, vanish, then reappear too close to the other,
perturbing its path slightly, only to have its next "bounce" happen off
center of where it "should have" gone had it passed through both
perfectly, or missed one completely. I.e., maybe electrons actually act
like virtual particles in a vacuum. Something makes them more "stable"
than those particles, but their position is inherently unstable, within
the limits of their known path, due to fluctuations similar to those
that cause virtual particles.
This would allow a particle to both "pass through" two slits at the same
time, and yet, *not* have done so, but only if the slits where within a
the maximum distance in which such fluctuations would allow the electron
to fluctuate.
The only question is then, what about diffusion? Would diffusion be
explained by an increase in the effective diameter of possible
fluctuations, as velocity is lost, kind of like bullets wobble more as
their spinning slows?
Just thinking about what explanation would "fit" the data, while giving
a better explanation that, "well, it just goes through two slots." Kind
of begs the question, "Ok, but how?" And, it provides a plausible source
for quantum uncertainty. If all particles are, on some level, a form of
virtual particle, but something about their energy state keeps making
stable from moment to moment, unlike the more common ones. Well, its a
creepy prospect, but it might explain some things about quantum physics
and the whole Heisenberg Uncertainty mess.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You know, I had a thought. What if electrons have no "fixed" path as we
> would think of it. I.e., their position tends to fluctuate, similar to
> what you get with the cloud of them around an atom (hint, they don't
> form shells, its just a useful analogy).
Well, I'm not sure this is the right way of looking at it. Nobody knows
what the electron is doing when you're not looking at it. Nobody knows
if electrons have a fixed path or not. People only know that if there
*is* a fixed path, you can't tell what it is without looking at it.
Nobody knows if electrons have a fixed position at any given time.
Certainly every time you look, they do. Equally certainly, for the math
to come out right, you have to assume they *might* be most anywhere.
> Then, if the slits are wide
> enough and at a distance "equal" to the effective maximum distance of
> displacement that can happen in these fluctuations,
There is no effective maximum distance. There are only "fluctuations"
that are impossible, and "fluctuations" with very low probabilities.
(It's the "impossible" bits that keep all the electrons from falling
into the nucleus.)
> multiple electrons
> fired in close proximity "may" find themselves in situations where their
> positions must be logically coincidence with one of the slits, and they
> "would" interfere and generate a pattern. Even a single one may do so,
> since it "could" in such a state pass through "both" at the same time,
> or near enough that similar coincident effects could cause it to pass
> through one perfectly, vanish, then reappear too close to the other,
> perturbing its path slightly, only to have its next "bounce" happen off
> center of where it "should have" gone had it passed through both
> perfectly, or missed one completely.
Yes, that's basically what the math says.
> I.e., maybe electrons actually act
> like virtual particles in a vacuum.
"Maybe"?
> Something makes them more "stable"
> than those particles, but their position is inherently unstable, within
> the limits of their known path, due to fluctuations similar to those
> that cause virtual particles.
Yes.
> This would allow a particle to both "pass through" two slits at the same
> time, and yet, *not* have done so, but only if the slits where within a
> the maximum distance in which such fluctuations would allow the electron
> to fluctuate.
I think you're looking at one experiment that gives very un-common-sense
results, and trying to come up with a common-sense explanation based on
popular understanding of what's known about how it works.
Any explanation you give for the "two slits" bit has to deal with
quantum erasure and delayed quantum erasure, for example.
> The only question is then, what about diffusion? Would diffusion be
> explained by an increase in the effective diameter of possible
> fluctuations, as velocity is lost, kind of like bullets wobble more as
> their spinning slows?
I'm not sure what you mean by "diffusion" here. Diffusion happens
without wobble or loss of velocity, so you might be talking about
something else. There is no "effective diameter of possible
fluctuations" if I understand what you mean by that properly.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmmm... No new posts on this thread from folks who were doing several
posts a day for the last few days. This seems to happen a lot, without
any real closure. I'm just curious, now.
1) I argue/discuss/debate in a way that pisses people off enough that
they stop in disgust.
2) I seem too dense to consider what others have said, but it's not
worth saying "I don't think we'll come to an agreement, so I'm stopping."
3) I explained sufficiently clearly to change your mind (for arbitrary
values of "you"*), but you're either embarrassed or don't think it's
worth mentioning "yes, that makes sense, we're done."
4) You explained enough and you think I'm just arguing because I refuse
to admit I'm wrong?
5) You (for some "you") got tired of talking about it and just didn't
bother to say "I'm tired of talking about it."
6) You (for some "you") got busy and didn't take the time to say "too
busy to finish talking about this."
I'm curious why many of these discussions which seem to me lively and
interesting also seem to just ... stop without coming to any sort of
explicit closure.
[*] By which I mean, not specifically the people on this thread, but
often times on this server.
--
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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm curious why many of these discussions which seem to me lively and
> interesting also seem to just ... stop without coming to any sort of
> explicit closure.
When a conversation is going basically nowhere, and especially when
the tone of the text is not the most positive, people get tired of
arguing.
People don't like being told in harsh words "that's not true, you
are wrong", even if that's the case. Being too blunt about someone's
error (especially if it's actually not completely clear if there *is*
an error) is usually not going to get very positive feedback. People
feel attacked. Sometimes someone may actually realise he's not
completely right, but he still may feel that he doesn't deserve such
a blunt response.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:13:44 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm curious why many of these discussions which seem to me lively and
>> interesting also seem to just ... stop without coming to any sort of
>> explicit closure.
>
> When a conversation is going basically nowhere, and especially when
> the tone of the text is not the most positive, people get tired of
> arguing.
>
> People don't like being told in harsh words "that's not true, you
> are wrong", even if that's the case. Being too blunt about someone's
> error (especially if it's actually not completely clear if there *is* an
> error) is usually not going to get very positive feedback. People feel
> attacked. Sometimes someone may actually realise he's not completely
> right, but he still may feel that he doesn't deserve such a blunt
> response.
You're wrong.
<scnr>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I simply had nothing new to add myself. I did not think I could add
anything that might help you understand each others point. I was clear
to me that everybody seemed intent to stick to their own
(mis)interpretation. So why bother?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> When a conversation is going basically nowhere, and especially when
> the tone of the text is not the most positive, people get tired of
> arguing.
Huh. I thought it was going. I learned a fair amount from it myself, at
least.
> People don't like being told in harsh words "that's not true, you
> are wrong", even if that's the case. Being too blunt about someone's
> error (especially if it's actually not completely clear if there *is*
> an error) is usually not going to get very positive feedback. People
> feel attacked. Sometimes someone may actually realise he's not
> completely right, but he still may feel that he doesn't deserve such
> a blunt response.
Thank you for explaining. I sincerely appreciate you telling me what
I'm doing wrong. Thanks!
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4846afed$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> > This would allow a particle to both "pass through" two slits at the sam
e
> > time, and yet, *not* have done so, but only if the slits where within a
> > the maximum distance in which such fluctuations would allow the electro
n
> > to fluctuate.
>
> I think you're looking at one experiment that gives very un-common-sense
> results, and trying to come up with a common-sense explanation based on
> popular understanding of what's known about how it works.
>
Umm, yeah. Kind of figured that is what science is supposed to do right?
lol But, I think it scales well anyway. If an electron is passing
through a wire, some "escapes" when it gets near the edge, otherwise it
has constraints on "where" it can show up. Since that can't be in the
middle of an existing particle, and other forces seem to deny it
appearing "too close to" another one, its only real option is to shove
something out of the way, or stay where it is (more or less). Which one
it does depends on the level of stability inherent in the other
particles around it, and the forces thus being applied to it. In that
sense you obviously "can" narrow its allowed area of fluctuation, and
increase it by firing it through less dense materials.
> > The only question is then, what about diffusion? Would diffusion be
> > explained by an increase in the effective diameter of possible
> > fluctuations, as velocity is lost, kind of like bullets wobble more as
> > their spinning slows?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "diffusion" here. Diffusion happens
> without wobble or loss of velocity, so you might be talking about
> something else. There is no "effective diameter of possible
> fluctuations" if I understand what you mean by that properly.
>
Well, I suppose its more like what I describe above. Your right though,
I over extended it a tad. lol
Or, maybe not. If you have a vacuum, one of the properties of that
vacuum is that there are no other particles to "force" any particles
left in it to "stay" within the "normal" space they occupy. So, maybe
they are not "virtual" so much as, existing, but with an increased range
of "wobble" that is now in meters, instead of millimeters? The
assumption has always been that virtual particles are not "real" in the
same sense as normal ones, but what if they already exist, just the lack
of material density lets some existing particles "drift", at least
temporarilly, outside the bounds that their normal constraints would
allow? Not sure how the heck you would test that though. Look for
virtual electrons while simultaneously looking at every object for 5
feet in all directions to see if it "temporarilly" lost one?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <4846afed$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
>>> This would allow a particle to both "pass through" two slits at the same
>>> time, and yet, *not* have done so, but only if the slits where within a
>>> the maximum distance in which such fluctuations would allow the electron
>>> to fluctuate.
>> I think you're looking at one experiment that gives very un-common-sense
>> results, and trying to come up with a common-sense explanation based on
>> popular understanding of what's known about how it works.
>>
> Umm, yeah. Kind of figured that is what science is supposed to do right?
My emphasis was on "one experiment". There have been hundreds of
unintuitive results from experiments. Trying to explain just one, when
it contradicts a bunch of others, isn't likely to be too productive.
Fun, perhaps, but unproductive. :-)
> lol But, I think it scales well anyway. If an electron is passing
> through a wire, some "escapes" when it gets near the edge, otherwise it
> has constraints on "where" it can show up.
It has very few constraints, really. There are very few conditions where
probability is actually zero.
> Since that can't be in the middle of an existing particle,
Actually, it can, depending on the polarization.
> Or, maybe not. If you have a vacuum, one of the properties of that
> vacuum is that there are no other particles to "force" any particles
> left in it to "stay" within the "normal" space they occupy.
I don't know what you mean. Vacuum is full of other particles, and I'm
not sure what "normal space" would be.
> assumption has always been that virtual particles are not "real" in the
> same sense as normal ones,
I wasn't aware of that.
In any case, I can't follow what you're talking about. It's either too
far from the terms that everyone else uses, or too vague for me to have
any idea what you're trying to 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I'm curious why many of these discussions which seem to me lively and
> interesting also seem to just ... stop without coming to any sort of
> explicit closure.
Didn't find anything to complain about.<G>
--
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48473bcd$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > assumption has always been that virtual particles are not "real" in the
> > same sense as normal ones,
>
> I wasn't aware of that.
>
> In any case, I can't follow what you're talking about. It's either too
> far from the terms that everyone else uses, or too vague for me to have
> any idea what you're trying to say.
>
>
I mean real in the sense that they "stay put", instead of vanishing
again. You know, like a "virtual" thing that isn't always there? I
presume that is what they mean, otherwise you wouldn't have a vacuum
very long, particles would keep popping into it until it was full again.
So, one alternative to the idea that they *are* virtual, is that they
are in fact not popping into existence at all, they already "do" exist,
but that its the absence of a lot of, comparitively, dense materials
that allows "existing" particles to sometimes "show up", with a greater
odds of doing so, in the vacuum. However, since there is also nothing to
stabilize them in that location, they "pop" back to their original range
soon after, since there is nothing to keep them in the vacuum and the
attraction of the other particles where they where before is greater.
Sort of the opposite of dispersion you see with most things. Instead of
being attracted to places that 'do not' contain the substance, like with
osmosis, in this case, the lack of anything to attract them means they
can't stay there, even if they do occasionally "jump" into the empty
area very briefly.
But, just speculating. After all, the point, if you have one experiment
that doesn't make sense, and you can't resolve the difference, is to try
to unify the results, and that "may" mean reconsidering your assumptions
about what particles "appear" to do normally, rather than presuming that
you have just found some odd special case.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I mean real in the sense that they "stay put",
According to the math, they don't "stay put". Virtual particles are
created when a "real" particle vanishes. Then the virtual particles bump
into each other again and turn back into the "real" particle.
> But, just speculating. After all, the point, if you have one experiment
> that doesn't make sense, and you can't resolve the difference, is to try
> to unify the results, and that "may" mean reconsidering your assumptions
> about what particles "appear" to do normally, rather than presuming that
> you have just found some odd special case.
Sure. Or do more experiments to figure it out.
--
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?)
Actually, this just out...
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06/the_reality_tests_1.php
It's a lack of reality, and not a lack of non-local interactions,
according to these guys. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4848692d@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > I mean real in the sense that they "stay put",
>
> According to the math, they don't "stay put". Virtual particles are
> created when a "real" particle vanishes. Then the virtual particles bump
> into each other again and turn back into the "real" particle.
>
Not *quite* what I was getting at, in that my suggestion would, by this
logic, imply that some particle in a solid object nearby vanished,
generated two virtual particles, bumped into each other to make a real
one again, which you could detect in the vacuum, or, if unmolested,
vanished into two virtual ones again, just to "pop" back into being
inside the solid object where they started from. That would be actually
*more* disturbing than what I implied as a solution. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That would be actually *more* disturbing than what I implied as a solution. lol
Yep. That's pretty much what can happen.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
