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