Time is a concept
mpc755
have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
changed, or do you replace the batteries?
SolomonW
A clock can measure time, it does not mean that it will also measure time.
A better example to yours is say the clock was broken and did not work.
Ste
A bit like your argument (and I was going to say something else).
The OP is indeed correct. The rate at which a clock ticks has
absolutely nothing to do with theoretical physics, and the clock
itself is only useful to humans if it ticks at relatively the same
speed as all others.
Also, it is possible to construct a clock that ticks at the same rate
in all reference frames. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for
the brain. A strange phenomenon is found here at
sci.physics.relativity though: the rate of brain slowdown appears to
vary between individuals, with some apparently unaffected, and others
rendered into vegetables.
Inertial
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0e2d2f6-53a7-4944...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Dec, 04:50, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamLamp.com.au> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:29:46 -0800 (PST), mpc755 wrote:
>> > The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
>> > have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
>> > changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>>
>> A clock can measure time, it does not mean that it will also measure
>> time.
>> A better example to yours is say the clock was broken and did not work.
>
> A bit like your argument (and I was going to say something else).
>
> The OP is indeed correct. The rate at which a clock ticks has
> absolutely nothing to do with theoretical physics, and the clock
> itself is only useful to humans if it ticks at relatively the same
> speed as all others.
Nope .. we need a notion of time, and time is what clocks measure (the
difference in their readings is a measure of the difference in position in
the time dimension). Even purely theoretical physics needs to be working on
models of reality, and that almost always requires a concept of time.
> Also, it is possible to construct a clock that ticks at the same rate
> in all reference frames.
Nope .. you can't. every different inertial reference frame will measure a
different ticking rate for a given clock. This has been verified
experimentally.
> Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for
> the brain. A strange phenomenon is found here at
> sci.physics.relativity though: the rate of brain slowdown appears to
> vary between individuals, with some apparently unaffected, and others
> rendered into vegetables.
Indeed.
Sue...
A clock *marks* time.
To quote Uncle Al..."idiot!"
Relativistic particle dynamics
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html
Sue...
Inertial
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:d3e11966-27e3-4823...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 11:50 pm, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamLamp.com.au> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:29:46 -0800 (PST), mpc755 wrote:
>> > The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
>> > have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
>> > changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>>
>> A clock can measure time, it does not mean that it will also measure
>> time.
>> A better example to yours is say the clock was broken and did not work.
>
> A clock *marks* time.
Something relevant from Sue .. amazing :)
> To quote Uncle Al..."idiot!"
Only, as usual, quoted from someone else
> Relativistic particle dynamics
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html
And, as usual, an unrelated link, to make you look like you understand the
physics .. but it really shows you have no idea about what is really being
discussed.
Dirk Van de moortel
f4e7ea1c-488a-4c26...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
> The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
> have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
> changed, or do you replace the batteries?
Time is defined as what a clock reads. Every clock has its
very own time. The time of a battery operated clock is only
(limitedly) useful as long as the batteries are good.
So yes, the "battery operated clock's time" has changed
when compared to the "most stable clocks' times" we
currently have: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
Dirk Vdm
Lee
>
> > The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
> > have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
> > changed, or do you replace the batteries?
you mean faster, at lower batt voltage systems
runs, if they runs, faster not slower
>
> Time is defined as what a clock reads. Every clock has its
mythology, clocks not reads, observers reads
> very own time. The time of a battery operated clock is only
> (limitedly) useful as long as the batteries are good.
wrong again, clocks ticks not run, batteries are insignificant
> So yes, the "battery operated clock's time" has changed
> when compared to the "most stable clocks' times" we
> currently have: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
>
> Dirk Vdm
you not understand, is about the rate not no stability
mpc755
Even the "most stable clocks' times" are under the physical effects of
their surroundings. The batter operated clock 'ticks' at a different
rate when the batteries are about to die because the physical nature
of the clock has changed.
An atomic clock is under the influence of aether pressure. The faster
one atomic clock is moving relative to the aether, the more aether the
clock displaces and the more aether pressure there is back towards the
clock, slowing the rate at which the clock 'ticks'. The greater the
aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive
object (gravity) the slower the rate at which a clock 'ticks'.
Just like the battery operated clock is dependent on the physical
state in which it exists, atomic clocks are dependent on the physical
state in which they exist. The rate at which either clock 'ticks'
having nothing to do with time.
mpc755
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d0e2d2f6-53a7-4944...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 28 Dec, 04:50, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamLamp.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:29:46 -0800 (PST), mpc755 wrote:
> >> > The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
> >> > have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
> >> > changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>
> >> A clock can measure time, it does not mean that it will also measure
> >> time.
> >> A better example to yours is say the clock was broken and did not work.
>
> > A bit like your argument (and I was going to say something else).
>
> > The OP is indeed correct. The rate at which a clock ticks has
> > absolutely nothing to do with theoretical physics, and the clock
> > itself is only useful to humans if it ticks at relatively the same
> > speed as all others.
>
> Nope .. we need a notion of time,
Exactly.
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Dec 28, 6:24 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> f4e7ea1c-488a-4c26-b9cc-9681e3571...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
>>> have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
>>> changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>>
>> Time is defined as what a clock reads. Every clock has its
>> very own time. The time of a battery operated clock is only
>> (limitedly) useful as long as the batteries are good.
>> So yes, the "battery operated clock's time" has changed
>> when compared to the "most stable clocks' times" we
>> currently have: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Even the "most stable clocks' times" are under the physical effects of
> their surroundings.
Sure. So what?
> The batter operated clock 'ticks' at a different
> rate when the batteries are about to die because the physical nature
> of the clock has changed.
Of course.
>
> An atomic clock is under the influence of aether pressure.
As far we know there is no aether.
So as far as I am concerded we can end this here.
Dirk Vdm
mpc755
What is your physical explanation of what is occurring which causes
clocks to 'tick' at different rates?
Aether is an elastic medium and does not rest when displaced. It
pushes back.
Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether.
An atomic clock 'ticks' with respect to the aether pressure.
The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
objects is gravity.
When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule the
C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the displacement
wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether travels through multiple
slits.
In the image on the right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment
There are physical waves in the aether traveling both the blue and red
paths, while a photon 'particle' travels the blue or red path. Where
the blue and red paths are combined in the image, the physical waves
in the aether create interference which alters the direction the
photon 'particle' travels.
'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.
Dirk Van de moortel
>> So as far as I am concerded we can end this here.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> What is your physical explanation of what is occurring which causes
> clocks to 'tick' at different rates?
I don't have any, nor do I need any.
And I ended the conversation, remember?
You can continue if you like, but I won't be here to join you.
Dirk Vdm
mpc755
Well then, you are missing the point of physics.
kenseto
The only time exist is absolute time and the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames. In other words absolute time
is insensitive to motion. A clock second is a measure of a specific
amount of absolute time in the rest frame of the clock. However a
clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in
different frames (Different states of absolute motion). This is why
clocks in relative motion are running at different rates....ie they
accumulate clock seconds at a different rates.....SR call this time
dilation. The purpose of the math of SR/GR or IRT is to predict the
clock reading on an OBSERVED clock for a specific interval of absolute
time (number of clock seconds) on the observer's clock.
What I said above is supported by the GPS clock system. A GPS second
is redefined to have 4.15 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than a
ground clock second. This redefinition is designed to make the GPS
second contain the same amount of absolute time as a grouns clock
second.
Ken Seto
mpc755
What is your physical explanation of what is occurring which causes
clocks to 'tick' at different rates?
Aether is an elastic medium and does not rest when displaced. It
pushes back. The pushing back is the associated aether pressure due to
the aether being displaced. Aether is displaced by a moving object. An
object moving with respect to the aether creates an associated aether
pressure on the object, and there is aether pressure associated with
the aether displaced by massive objects (gravity).
The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to
displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the
clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a
clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite
clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure
associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure
on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth
"causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day".
Combining the aether pressure associated with the speed at which the
GPS satellite moves in the aether and the aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS
satellites tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the
ground" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
glird
On Dec 28, 12:13 am, "Inertial" wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote >
> > On 28 Dec, 04:50, SolomonW wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 mpc755 wrote:
><<<< The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>
><<< A clock can measure time, it does not mean that it will also measure time.
A better example to yours is say the clock was broken and did not
work.
>
><<A bit like your argument (and I was going to say something else).
The OP is indeed correct. The rate at which a clock ticks has
absolutely nothing to do with theoretical physics, and the clock
itself is only useful to humans if it ticks at relatively the same
speed as all others.
>
>< Nope .. we need a notion of time, and time is what clocks measure (the difference in their readings is a measure of the difference in position in the time dimension). Even purely theoretical physics needs to be working on models of reality, and that almost always requires a concept of time. >
As written in "What it all is and Why", 1989, page 10:
_____________
Relation is the juxtaposition of things to each other, with respect
to where and when they are. There is thus physical extension, which
can be called "space"; as well as conceptual extension which is an
arbitrarily chosen volume measurable in arbitrarily chosen numbers of
dimensions using arbitrarily agreed upon units of measurement. There
is also temporal duration, which can be called "time"; as well as the
abstract dimension, "time", in which we measure arbitrarily chosen
portions of it, using agreed upon units of measure. The physical
relation in space and time plays a governing role in how things are
made, how they act, and what they are.
Since there have always been differentiated portions of matter in
the universe, there has always existed such a relation. Although a
universal void could not have relations in it, thus relation too
demands the existence of material substance, the relationship of
itself is not made of matter, motion, or pressure. It exists with
them. It is the one basic item that physicists know best. It is the
main subject of the mathematical language of Physics. With respect to
that, however, there is a duality to relation.
There is the real and physical relation that exists between real
things; and there is the abstract set of tools with which we measure
such relationships. Such mental tools are rational inventions whose
values are agreed upon by international convention. This abstract
"metrical relation" is commonly confused with the "physical relation"
it tries to describe. The lack of distinction between these two
different kinds of relation severely compromised our ability to
understand either reality or even the physical meanings of the symbols
in many of the equations used to describe what physically happens.
_____________
As updated in "The Universe", 2009, page 8,
_____________
The totality of physical extension is called "space". The totality
of duration is called "time". The physical relations in space and
time play a controlling role in how things are made and how they act.
However, there is a duality to relation. "Physical relation" is the
relation that exists between real things, whether or not it is
measured. "Metrical relation" denotes our measurements of physical
relations.
"Physical space" is the totality of extension in all directions.
"Metrical space" is an abstraction, obtained with measuring tools we
invent and use to measure spatial relations between various things.
"Physical time", generally called "time", is the temporal duration of
physical things. "Metrical time" is also called "time". It is a
dimension, used to measure portions of physical duration.
_____________
> > Also, it is possible to construct a clock that ticks
> > at the same rate in all reference frames.
>
> Nope .. you can't. Every different inertial reference
> frame will measure a different ticking rate for a given
> clock. This has been verified experimentally.
Slow down and refine your semantics, Inertial. I think you meant to
say, "Every differently moving inertial reference frame will measure a
different ticking rate for a given clock."
Given a properly working clock, it will tick at the same rate as
viewed in every frame of reference in which it is placed, regardless
of the state of motion of the co-moving referent.
glird
mpc755
You have to 'correct' an atomic clock prior to launch so it will 'work
properly' based on the effects of the aether pressure it will
encounter once in orbit.
kenseto
The rate of passage of clock seconds on a clock is dependent on the
state of absolute motion of the clock. Clocks in relative motion are
running at different rates because they are in different states of
absolute motion. I suggest that you read the following paper:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf
In this paper I explained the physical processes that give rise to the
weird results of the double slit experiment.
Ken Seto
> In the image on the right here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi...
>
> There are physical waves in the aether traveling both the blue and red
> paths, while a photon 'particle' travels the blue or red path. Where
> the blue and red paths are combined in the image, the physical waves
> in the aether create interference which alters the direction the
> photon 'particle' travels.
>
> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
> The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
> aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
> dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
> and matter is energy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mpc755
I prefer the concept of Aether Displacement and the associated aether
pressure to the concept of an E-Matrix composed of E-Strings.
Inertial
"glird" <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:611a79a5-fa10-4864...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Dec 28, 12:13 am, "Inertial" wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote >
>> > On 28 Dec, 04:50, SolomonW wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 mpc755 wrote:
>><<<< The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
>>have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
>>changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>>
>><<< A clock can measure time, it does not mean that it will also measure
>>time.
> A better example to yours is say the clock was broken and did not
> work.
>>
> ><<A bit like your argument (and I was going to say something else).
> The OP is indeed correct. The rate at which a clock ticks has
> absolutely nothing to do with theoretical physics, and the clock
> itself is only useful to humans if it ticks at relatively the same
> speed as all others.
>>
>>< Nope .. we need a notion of time, and time is what clocks measure (the
>>difference in their readings is a measure of the difference in position in
>>the time dimension). Even purely theoretical physics needs to be working
>>on models of reality, and that almost always requires a concept of time. >
>
> As written in "What it all is and Why", 1989, page 10:
What book / article is that?
What book / article is that?
> _____________
>
> The totality of physical extension is called "space". The totality
> of duration is called "time". The physical relations in space and
> time play a controlling role in how things are made and how they act.
> However, there is a duality to relation. "Physical relation" is the
> relation that exists between real things, whether or not it is
> measured. "Metrical relation" denotes our measurements of physical
> relations.
> "Physical space" is the totality of extension in all directions.
> "Metrical space" is an abstraction, obtained with measuring tools we
> invent and use to measure spatial relations between various things.
> "Physical time", generally called "time", is the temporal duration of
> physical things. "Metrical time" is also called "time". It is a
> dimension, used to measure portions of physical duration.
> _____________
>
>
>> > Also, it is possible to construct a clock that ticks
>> > at the same rate in all reference frames.
>>
>> Nope .. you can't. Every different inertial reference
>> frame will measure a different ticking rate for a given
>> clock. This has been verified experimentally.
>
> Slow down and refine your semantics, Inertial.
Why?
> I think you meant to
> say, "Every differently moving inertial reference frame will measure a
> different ticking rate for a given clock."
Same thing effectively. But that's fine if you prefer it that way.
> Given a properly working clock, it will tick at the same rate as
> viewed in every frame of reference in which it is placed,
No .. if you're going to be fussy .. in ANY INERTIAL frame of reference in
which is it AT REST (OR CO-MOVING)
Every clock is in every frame of reference. But it is only at rest in one
inertial frame (or rather, in a set of equivalent co-moving inertial frames)
> regardless
> of the state of motion of the co-moving referent.
Referent for what?
mpc755
Your following statements are correct:
"we need a notion of time..."
"Even purely theoretical physics...requires a concept of time."
Ste
Are you sure? What "corrections" are made to the clock?
Inertial
It is well documented .. look at documentation on GPS satellites and the
effects of relativity on them. The corrections to the ticking rate of the
clocks are made at launch to minimize the drift in readings between the
periodic synching of the GPS clock with ground clocks.
It could also be done on-the-fly (so to speak) without pre-adjustment of the
clock rate before launch .. but the amount of the effect that relativity has
on the clocks is the same regardless of the mechanism for adjusting for it.
mpc755
Global Positioning System
http://www.answers.com/topic/global-positioning-system
"According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement
and height relative to the Earth-centered, non-rotating approximately
inertial reference frame, the clocks on the satellites are affected by
their speed. Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at
GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks
by about 7.2 μs per day.
For the GPS satellites, general relativity predicts that the atomic
clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick more rapidly, by about 45.9
μs per day, because they have a higher gravitational potential than
atomic clocks on Earth's surface.
When combined, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day; a
difference of 4.465 parts in 1010.[62] To account for this
discrepancy, the frequency standard on board each satellite is given a
rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the
desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz
instead of 10.23 MHz.[63] Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS
satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical
engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a
real-world environment. Placing atomic clocks on artificial satellites
to test Einstein's general theory was proposed by Friedwardt
Winterberg in 1955."
The physical effects on the clock caused by the aether pressure
associated with the aether displaced by the moving satellite (Special
Relativity) and the aether pressure associated with the aether
displaced by the Earth (General Relativity).
kenseto
Sigh....absolute motion of physical objects in the E-Matrix causes
distortions in the E-Matrix....that is your ether displacement. You
don't have any math so you don't have a theory.
Ken Seto
K
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
mpc755
Yes, there are similarities between you E-Matrix composed of E-
Strings, but it is one thing to conceptualize an aether ("According to
the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" -
Albert Einstein) and then there is a completely different
conceptualization of an E-Matrix with E-Strings.
As for Aether Displacement, right now the only properties it has is
the properties of displacement and entrainment. The property of
displacement has the associated property of not being at rest when
displaced, resulting in the property of aether pressure back towards
the matter doing the displacing.
The properties of displacement and entrainment fit nicely with
Einstein's definition of aether: "the [ether] is at every place
determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether
in neighbouring places". The property of displacement also fits nicely
with Maxwell's concept of a displacement current.
The following is also described by Aether Displacement:
Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether.
An atomic clock 'ticks' with respect to the aether pressure.
The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
objects is gravity.
When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule the
C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the displacement
wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether travels through multiple
slits.
In the image on the right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment
mpc755
> The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
> have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
> changed, or do you replace the batteries?
Aether Pressure is probably similar to a Hydrostatic Pressure, except
aether exists throughout the matter which is the body:
http://www.extremescience.com/DeepestOcean.htm
"When you get into the ocean (or any body of water) and you start
diving down from the surface, the deeper you dive the more water is
over the top of you. The more gallons of water you put between you and
the surface of the ocean, the greater the pressure is on your body
because of the weight of the water over the top of you. This pressure
is called hydrostatic pressure."
Since aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether,
the aether has mass.
Think of a clock a couple of feet below the surface of the ocean which
has the second hand of the clock exposed to the water. Make it so the
second hand on the clock is a paddle that pushes through the water.
Time the clock in the water so one full rotation of the second hand
correlates with one minute on a clock on the boat.
Now drop the clock one mile below the surface of the ocean. Because of
the increase in water pressure on the click, I'm guessing it is going
to require more force for the second hand with the paddle to push
through the water, causing the hand to take more than one minute as
determined by the clock on the boat, to make one complete rotation.
Has time changed? Of course not.
glird
> "glird" <gl...@aol.com> wrote
>
>> As written in "What it all is and Why", 1989, page 10:
>
> What book / article is that?
It is a book. It was written prior to the date
a copyright was issued in 1989.
snip
> > As updated in "The Universe", 2009, page 8,
>
> What book / article is that?
It is a book. Although a copyright was issued in
2009, it is still being written.
> > Slow down and refine your semantics, Inertial.
>
> Why?
You'll see why in a moment.
glird: Given a properly working clock, it will
tick at the same rate as viewed in every frame
of reference in which it is placed,
>
Inertial: No .. if you're going to be fussy ..
in ANY INERTIAL frame of reference in
which it is AT REST (OR CO-MOVING) >
Slow down, Inertial. Stop interrupting in
the middle of a sentence.
Inertial: Every clock is in every frame of
reference. But it is only at rest in one inertial
frame (or rather, in a set of equivalent co-moving
inertial frames)
> > regardless of the state of motion of the
> > **_co-moving_** referent.
>
> Referent for what?
The "CO-MOVING" {;-}referent is the visible object
to which the "frame of reference" of the co-moving
clock is attached.
BTW, the referent, thus the given frame of
reference and the co-moving clock on which
it is placed, doesn't have to be "inertial".
Indeed, in RT (and in reality!) there is no such
thing as an inertially moving system.
(In "RT" that's because there is no ultimate
referent for velocities, thus two identically
accelerating systems can be "at rest" wrt each
other. What, then, would be the state of motion of
a third system that was "inertially moving"
relative to them?
In "reality", that's because there is always an
attractive and/or repulsive force between any two
particles, so they are always being accelerated
back and forth even though they remain in a given
position statistically.
glird
glird
SEE!!
> Referent for what?
The "CO-MOVING {;-} referent" is the
visible object to which the "frame of
reference" of the co-moving clock is
attached.
BTW, the referent, thus the given
frame of reference and the co-moving
clock on which it is placed, doesn't
have to be "inertial".
Indeed, in RT (and in reality!)
there is no such thing as an
inertially moving system.
(In "RT" that's because there is
no ultimate referent for velocities,
thus two identically accelerating systems
can be taken as "at rest" wrt each other.
Inertial
> On Dec 28 2009, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" wrote:
>> "glird" <gl...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>>> As written in "What it all is and Why", 1989, page 10:
>>
>> What book / article is that?
>
> It is a book. It was written prior to the date
> a copyright was issued in 1989.
Smart arse
mpc755
The fish do not understand water exists and it is the increase in the
water pressure that caused the clock to 'tick' slower. Does this mean
time has changed, or are the fish incorrect?
PD
> The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
> have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
> changed, or do you replace the batteries?
Well, that depends on the next test.
If you have 6 different clocks, all of different construction and
operating principle, and they all run slow by the same factor, and
that factor is precisely what is is predicted by relativity, then yes,
it probably doesn't have to do with batteries.
PD
Please calculate the size of the effect of aether pressure.
PD
> On Dec 28, 6:24 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
>
>
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > f4e7ea1c-488a-4c26-b9cc-9681e3571...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>
> > > have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
> > > changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>
> > very own time. The time of a battery operated clock is only
> > (limitedly) useful as long as the batteries are good.
> > So yes, the "battery operated clock's time" has changed
> > when compared to the "most stable clocks' times" we
> > currently have: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Even the "most stable clocks' times" are under the physical effects of
> rate when the batteries are about to die because the physical nature
> of the clock has changed.
>
> one atomic clock is moving relative to the aether, the more aether the
> clock displaces and the more aether pressure there is back towards the
> clock, slowing the rate at which the clock 'ticks'. The greater the
> aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive
> object (gravity) the slower the rate at which a clock 'ticks'.
Then you should be able to *calculate* the effect on clock rate due to
aether pressure.
What is the formula for the change in clock rate as a function of
aether pressure?
>
> Just like the battery operated clock is dependent on the physical
> state in which it exists, atomic clocks are dependent on the physical
> state in which they exist. The rate at which either clock 'ticks'
> having nothing to do with time.
mpc755
Aether Pressure is probably similar to a Hydrostatic Pressure, except
aether exists throughout the matter which is the body:
http://www.extremescience.com/DeepestOcean.htm
"When you get into the ocean (or any body of water) and you start
diving down from the surface, the deeper you dive the more water is
over the top of you. The more gallons of water you put between you and
the surface of the ocean, the greater the pressure is on your body
because of the weight of the water over the top of you. This pressure
is called hydrostatic pressure."
Since aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether,
the aether has mass.
Think of a clock a couple of feet below the surface of the ocean which
has the second hand of the clock exposed to the water. Make it so the
second hand on the clock is a paddle that pushes through the water.
Time the clock in the water so one full rotation of the second hand
correlates with one minute on a clock on the boat.
Now drop the clock one mile below the surface of the ocean. Because of
the increase in water pressure on the clock, I'm guessing it is going
to require more force for the second hand with the paddle to push
through the water, causing the hand to take more than one minute to
make one complete rotation as determined by the clock on the boat.
The fish do not understand water exists and it is the increase in the
water pressure that caused the clock to 'tick' slower.
Has time changed? Only if you are a fish.
You are a fish.
PD
> On Jan 4, 12:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27 2009, 9:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
> > > have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
> > > changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>
> > Well, that depends on the next test.
>
> > If you have 6 different clocks, all of different construction and
> > operating principle, and they all run slow by the same factor, and
> > that factor is precisely what is is predicted by relativity, then yes,
> > it probably doesn't have to do with batteries.
>
> Aether Pressure is probably similar to a Hydrostatic Pressure, except
> aether exists throughout the matter which is the body:
Probably? PROBABLY??
I thought you had a theory, not a piddly, half-baked hunch.
When you can calculate the effect on clock rate by aether pressure and
specifically show why that effect is independent of clock mechanism or
principle of operation, then you may be onto something.
Until then, it's just blather.
mpc755
> On Jan 4, 12:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 12:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27 2009, 9:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
> > > > have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
> > > > changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>
> > > Well, that depends on the next test.
>
> > > If you have 6 different clocks, all of different construction and
> > > operating principle, and they all run slow by the same factor, and
> > > that factor is precisely what is is predicted by relativity, then yes,
> > > it probably doesn't have to do with batteries.
>
> > Aether Pressure is probably similar to a Hydrostatic Pressure, except
> > aether exists throughout the matter which is the body:
>
> Probably? PROBABLY??
> I thought you had a theory, not a piddly, half-baked hunch.
> When you can calculate the effect on clock rate by aether pressure and
> specifically show why that effect is independent of clock mechanism or
> principle of operation, then you may be onto something.
> Until then, it's just blather.
>
Denial. Saying you are a fish is an insult to fish.
PD
> On Jan 4, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 12:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 12:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 27 2009, 9:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you
> > > > > have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower has time
> > > > > changed, or do you replace the batteries?
>
> > > > Well, that depends on the next test.
>
> > > > If you have 6 different clocks, all of different construction and
> > > > operating principle, and they all run slow by the same factor, and
> > > > that factor is precisely what is is predicted by relativity, then yes,
> > > > it probably doesn't have to do with batteries.
>
> > > Aether Pressure is probably similar to a Hydrostatic Pressure, except
> > > aether exists throughout the matter which is the body:
>
> > Probably? PROBABLY??
> > I thought you had a theory, not a piddly, half-baked hunch.
> > When you can calculate the effect on clock rate by aether pressure and
> > specifically show why that effect is independent of clock mechanism or
> > principle of operation, then you may be onto something.
> > Until then, it's just blather.
>
> Denial. Saying you are a fish is an insult to fish.
I didn't say I was a fish. You did.
What I said is that when you can *calculate* the effect on clock rates
due to aether pressure, you may have a theory. Until then, you've got
nothing but hot air and a cheesy "I wanna be a physicist" mask.
mpc755
Just like the fish who cannot understand the difference between
mathematics and nature who insists time has slowed down because they
are ignorant to the existence of water and its associated water
pressure, you cannot understand the difference between mathematics and
nature and insist time has slowed down because you are ignorant to the
existence of aether and the associated aether pressure.
How do you explain to a fish they exist in water and it is the water
pressure that has slowed the rate at which the clock 'ticks' if they
refuse to believe in the existence of water?
Both you and the fish exist in a state of denial.
PD
It's simple. If you want to demonstrate the presence of the aether,
then you show which experiments prove the existence of the ether by
making predictions of measurable phenomena that are DIFFERENT than the
predictions of current models.
It does absolutely no good to simper and whine that it's OBVIOUS the
aether is there if you just THINK about it, and that people who don't
buy it are just being blind to it.
That's not how science goes about its business.
mpc755
How do you explain to a fish it exists in water and it is the water
pressure that has slowed the rate at which the clock 'ticks' if the
fish refuses to believe in the existence of water?
PD
By doing what I said: Calculating a prediction of a measurable
observation that can be tested in experiment, that is distinct from
the predictions of models that lack water. That way, the experimental
measurement settles the issue. This is how scientists come to believe
what they didn't believe before. This is how science works.
It's really very simple.
mpc755
Perform a modified version of the experiment represented in the image
A photon interacts with the BBO crystal and two downgraded photons are
created. Have each photon go through its own double slit apparatus.
Have detectors at the exits to one slit for each photon. Have the path
of the other slits be combined as in the image where the red and blue
lines travel the same path.
If a photon is detected at the detector at the exit to one of the
slits and a photon is not detected at the detector at the exit to the
other slit, then in QM, as far as I know, all that should still exist
at this point is a single photon with nothing to interfere with and,
in QM, the single photon should not be able to create an interference
pattern.
In AD, since a photon wave is traveling the available paths and the
photon 'particle' travels a single path, even after a photon is
detected at the detector at the exit to one of the slits, the photon's
wave still exists and is propagating along the other path.
This wave will create interference with the other photon wave
associated with the other photon and this interference will alter the
direction the other photon 'particle' travels and an interference will
still be created.
Let me know if QM has more nonsense to 'explain' the interference
pattern associated with the wave of one photon interacting with the
wave, and the 'particle', of another photon.
I'm guessing QM may already have, or will definitely make something
up, about how the photon, even though it was detected, still somehow
magically existing somewhere in time as the other photons entangled
pair or some other such bullshit.
But none the less, the results of this experiment are explained much
more naturally by AD.
PD
>
> A photon interacts with the BBO crystal and two downgraded photons are
> created. Have each photon go through its own double slit apparatus.
> Have detectors at the exits to one slit for each photon. Have the path
> of the other slits be combined as in the image where the red and blue
> lines travel the same path.
>
> If a photon is detected at the detector at the exit to one of the
> slits and a photon is not detected at the detector at the exit to the
> other slit, then in QM, as far as I know, all that should still exist
> at this point is a single photon with nothing to interfere with and,
> in QM, the single photon should not be able to create an interference
> pattern.
You do not understand what QM says, apparently. Do you need some
training on how to do calculations with QM?
>
> In AD, since a photon wave is traveling the available paths and the
> photon 'particle' travels a single path, even after a photon is
> detected at the detector at the exit to one of the slits, the photon's
> wave still exists and is propagating along the other path.
>
> This wave will create interference with the other photon wave
> associated with the other photon and this interference will alter the
> direction the other photon 'particle' travels and an interference will
> still be created.
>
> Let me know if QM has more nonsense to 'explain' the interference
> pattern associated with the wave of one photon interacting with the
> wave, and the 'particle', of another photon.
>
> I'm guessing QM may already have, or will definitely make something
> up, about how the photon, even though it was detected, still somehow
> magically existing somewhere in time as the other photons entangled
> pair or some other such bullshit.
It makes predictions. Those predictions are compared with experiment.
>
> But none the less, the results of this experiment are explained much
> more naturally by AD.
No, you don't get it. It doesn't matter a damn whether you think the
AD explanation is "more natural" or is not "bullshit".
What are the predictions of AD that are DISTINCT and DIFFERENT from
QM?
mpc755
Do you understand the experiment I am proposing? Two downgraded
photons each interact with their own double slit apparatus. Each
double slit apparatus has a detector at the exit to one of its slits.
The two remaining slits are combined as in the image in the link
above.
In AD, when a photon is detected at one of the detectors there is
still a physical aether wave in existence associated with the detected
photon and that physical aether wave exited the other slit. For the
other photon, it was not detected at the detector at one of the exits
to its double slit apparatus, meaning the photon 'particle' and its
associate aether wave are traveling the other path. In AD, at this
point there is the physical aether wave of one photon traveling a
single path and the physical aether wave and the 'particle' of the
other photon traveling a single path. When the paths are combined,
this physical wave in the aether will interfere with the other photon
and its wave and the photon will create an interference pattern.
In QM, as far as I know, when one of the photons is detected, that is
it. Nothing exits the other slit. For the other photon, since nothing
was detected at one of the exits to the double slit apparatus there is
nothing for that photon to interfere with and there will not be an
interference pattern on the screen.
What I am asking you is is my above description of there not being an
interference pattern created in QM for the proposed experiment
accurate? Is there something in QM I am not taking into account like
delayed choice or entanglement?
In QM, the act of detection causes the wave function to collapse and
you detect 'all' of the photon. For the other photon, since it wasn't
detected at the exit to one of the slits in its double slit apparatus,
the photon exited a single slit and has nothing to interfere with. In
QM, when the paths are combined all there is is a single photon and no
interference.
For the proposed experiment the results are different. In AD, there
will still be an interference pattern created on the screen. For QM,
there will not be an interference pattern.
mpc755
p - photon
d - detector
| - double slit apparatus
Step 1:
|
|
d (photon detected here)
p---> |
(AD: physical aether wave, QM: nothing)
|
|
|
|
|
(AD: photon aether wave and 'particle', QM: photon)
p---> |
d (photon not detected here)
|
|
Step 2:
(AD: physical aether wave, QM: nothing)\
--> Combined
(AD: photon aether wave and 'particle', QM: photon)/
Results:
AD: Interference pattern when executed with many photons
QM: No interference pattern when executed with many photons
mpc755
Test results also need to include the 'opposite':
p - photon
d - detector
| - double slit apparatus
Step 1:
|
|
d (photon not detected here)
p---> |
(AD: photon aether wave and 'particle', QM: photon)
|
|
|
|
|
(AD: physical aether wave, QM: nothing)
p---> |
d (photon detected here)
|
|
Step 2:
(AD: photon aether wave and 'particle', QM: photon)\
--> Combined
(AD: physical aether wave, QM: nothing)/
Results:
AD: Interference pattern when executed with many photons
QM: No interference pattern when executed with many photons
Tests where photons are detected at both detectors and when photons
are not detected at either detector are removed from the results.
PD
Yes, there is something you're not taking into account. And it's plain
that you don't have the foggiest idea even how to start analyzing it
quantum mechanically because you ask whether you should take into
account "delayed choice or entanglement".
Since it is YOU that is proposing AD, then YOU are obligated to show
where AD makes a prediction that is DIFFERENT than QM. In order to do
that, you have to learn how to make the predictions in QM as well as
make predictions in AD. I realize that the prospect of having to learn
quantum mechanics just chills you to the bone. Tough shit. If you want
to make a contribution to science, you have to do what is expected of
any scientist that hopes to make a contribution.
>
> In QM, the act of detection causes the wave function to collapse and
> you detect 'all' of the photon. For the other photon, since it wasn't
> detected at the exit to one of the slits in its double slit apparatus,
> the photon exited a single slit and has nothing to interfere with. In
> QM, when the paths are combined all there is is a single photon and no
> interference.
You have analyzed this experiment incorrectly.
PD
By all means, what you should do at this point is to perform the
experiment.
You have several key choices to make.
1. Do you need collaborators with experimental experience in this
area? If you don't want collaborators, then you'll need to do
additional homework to learn what they've learned. If you want
collaborators, then you will have to sell your idea to them to garner
their interest in participating with you.
2. Can you fund the acquisition and operation of the equipment needed
to do the experiment? If no, then you should prepare a grant proposal
to several funding agencies, following their guidelines for grant
proposals. If you don't want that hassle, then you'll have to find a
way to fund it yourself.
These are the choices that all physicists face and make on a regular
basis.
mpc755
But there is no point in performing the experiment if the nonsense of
QM says there will be an interference pattern on the screen just like
AD concludes.
If you perform the experiment with completely separate photons with
the same frequency, not ones that are a downgraded pair, then does the
nonsense of QM still predict an interference pattern?
PD
That's why YOU need to learn how to do quantum mechanics to find out
what prediction quantum mechanics actually makes, to be sure that the
AD prediction is distinct from this. This is the expectation of ANYONE
doing active work in the field. You are no exception.
mpc755
The QM prediction is two completely distinct photon each interacting
with their own double slit apparatus where the photon is detected
exiting one slit of its apparatus and the other photon is not detected
exiting a slit of its apparatus will not create an interference
pattern when the other two paths associated with the slits are
combined because there is nothing for the photon to interfere with.
This result is different than the AD result where there will still be
a physical wave in the aether exiting the slit even after the photon
is detected exiting the other slit. This physical wave in the aether
will interfere with the aether wave associated with the photon exiting
the slit of the other double slit apparatus and this interference will
alter the direction the photon travels, causing photons, fired
sequentially one at a time in the experiment, to eventually form an
interference pattern on the screen.
>
>
PD
No it is not. You need to learn how to do some quantum mechanics.
mpc755
No it is not what? I am saying in my modified experiment of the image
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment
There are two completely separate and unrelated, not entangled,
photons fired towards two different double slit apparatus. In QM,
since the photon has been detected, nothing exists along the other
path of the slit the photon did not exit. This path is combined with
the path the photon from the other double slit apparatus is exiting,
which has nothing to interfere with because a detector exists at the
exit to the other slit.
In QM, the photon has nothing to interfere with and as such there
isn't an interference pattern.
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6322af9b-89f0-4917...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The QM prediction is two completely distinct photon
No it is not. You need to learn how to do some quantum mechanics.
>
Yes it is. You need to learn Newton's third law. In fact you need to
learn physics instead of reciting crap.
mpc755
Anyone else willing to offer up what will happen in QM for the above
experiment?
Two photons, not entangled, with the same frequency each interact with
their own double slit apparatus. Each double slit apparatus has a
detector at the exit to one of the slits. One photon is detected
exiting one of the slits of its double slit apparatus, and the other
photon is not detected exiting one of the slits of its double slit
apparatus. The two paths are combined. As far as I know, in QM, all
there is at this point is a photon with nothing to interfere with and
there will not be an interference pattern formed with the experiment
is repeated many times.
Is my understanding of what will occur in QM correct?
In AD, since a physical wave in the aether travels the available
paths, there is a physical wave exiting the slit the photon is not
detected at. This wave will create interference with the photon
exiting the slit of the other double slit apparatus and this
interference will alter the direction the photon travels. Repeating
the experiment many times and an interference pattern will form.
Ste
The real question is about the nature of the photon in the first
place. To talk of the photon "existing one of the slits" is to already
presuppose that light is something that travels in a discrete packet
like a molecule. I think that is where the real mistake is.
glird
>
>< If you want to make a contribution to science,
you have to do what is expected of any scientist
that hopes to make a contribution.
prediction that is DIFFERENT than QM. In order to do
that, you have to learn how to make the predictions
in QM as well as make predictions in AD. >
Therefore, according to PD, science is nothing but
bullshi --- oops ... mathematics.
glird
mpc755
I think that is putting the cart before the horse.
The main purpose of the experiment I am proposing is to demonstrate
that even though the photon is detected exiting one of the slits,
something physical exits the other slit and is able to interfere with
another photon. AD states what is exiting the other slit is a wave in
the aether. The experiment I am proposing shows AD to be more correct,
when describing what a photon is, than QM.
My experiment adds information to what a photon is, or may be.
mpc755
As far as I know, the experiment I am proposing does make a prediction
that is different for AD than QM. But no QMr will even describe what
the outcome should be for the experiment I propose.
mpc755
In QM, as far as I know, once the photon is detected, that's it.
In QM, as far as I know, in the experiment I am proposing there will
not be an interference pattern.
In AD, there will be an interference pattern.
When the experiment is performed and there is an interference pattern,
AD will be more correct in terms of describing what a photon is than
QM.
This doesn't mean AD is right, just that it is more correct.
glird
>
>< In QM, as far as I know, in the experiment I am proposing there will
not be an interference pattern. In AD, there will be an interference
pattern.
When the experiment is performed and there is an interference
pattern,
AD will be more correct in terms of describing what a photon is than
QM. This doesn't mean AD is right, just that it is more correct. >
IF you are right, then that proves that QM is FALSE.
That is a powerful reason for actually doing your experiment.
glird
mpc755
Not false, incorrect.
mpc755
The experiment should first be performed with a downgraded photon
pair. The problem with this experiment in terms of evidence QM is
incorrect, is QMrs can make up more nonsense about entanglement,
delayed-choice, or whatever.
Once an interference pattern is created with a downgraded photon pair,
then the experiment should be performed with separate and unique
photons, but photons that are as alike, possibly opposite depending
upon how the experiment is configured, in their momentum as possible.
Of course, QMrs will make up more nonsense, but for those of not a
mediocre mind the nonsense should be self-evident.
PD
>
> The real question is about the nature of the photon in the first
> place. To talk of the photon "existing one of the slits" is to already
> presuppose that light is something that travels in a discrete packet
> like a molecule. I think that is where the real mistake is.
I think it would be useful if you would examine the behavior of light
in those circumstances where its particle nature is famously evident:
the photoelectric effect, single-photon counters, direct photon
production experiments, gamma rays, facilities like the Advance Photon
Source, and so on.
PD
Not so. But mathematics is required IN ADDITION to the physical
explanation. That's what makes the model testable via comparison with
quantitative measurements. To be able to make quantitative
predictions, you need to calculate. That doesn't make it JUST
mathematics.
PD
It's YOUR obligation to learn enough QM to describe the correct
outcome predicted by QM in that case.
Ste
I don't deny that light obviously has some sort of particle-like
behaviour. But so does water, in that it can be separated into
discrete packets (obviously, I'm talking about the behaviour of a
substantial volume of water), and yet clearly at a high tide water
will come through every gap in a wave-break, not just a single gap.
I suspect a "single photon" does not actually represent some
fundamental physical quantity of EM radiation, but instead represents
some minimum 'potential' that is necessary to have a transfer of
energy - obviously I'm drawing an analogy from electronics where a
minimum voltage is necessary to actually drive a circuit.
As I say, I think it's clear from the quantum eraser experiment that
what you're dealing with is not a self-contained particle, but some
sort of energy field which has no discrete boundary, and when a photon
is detected in some sense energy is being drawn from that field, the
origin of which is not from either slit in particular, but from a
contribution of both.
Obviously, as someone with a purely armchair interest in the subject,
I'm not pretending to have all the answers, but clearly there has got
to be a change in the way we think of EMR and the characteristics that
we attribute to it - as opposed to talking of a photon being "in two
places at once" or, heaven forfend, "effects preceding causes".
PD
> On 6 Jan, 19:59, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 9:58 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The real question is about the nature of the photon in the first
> > > place. To talk of the photon "existing one of the slits" is to already
> > > presuppose that light is something that travels in a discrete packet
> > > like a molecule. I think that is where the real mistake is.
>
> > I think it would be useful if you would examine the behavior of light
> > in those circumstances where its particle nature is famously evident:
> > the photoelectric effect, single-photon counters, direct photon
> > production experiments, gamma rays, facilities like the Advance Photon
> > Source, and so on.
>
> I don't deny that light obviously has some sort of particle-like
> behaviour.
And that is what is claimed -- exactly -- by quantum mechanics, and is
what is revealed in the experiments above.
> But so does water, in that it can be separated into
> discrete packets (obviously, I'm talking about the behaviour of a
> substantial volume of water), and yet clearly at a high tide water
> will come through every gap in a wave-break, not just a single gap.
What is remarkable is that if you take a SINGLE molecule of water and
aim it at gaps in a wave-break, you will ALSO get wavelike
interference patterns on the other side. This is confirmed
experimentally and is one of the big surprises by nature in the last
century.
>
> I suspect a "single photon" does not actually represent some
> fundamental physical quantity of EM radiation, but instead represents
> some minimum 'potential' that is necessary to have a transfer of
> energy - obviously I'm drawing an analogy from electronics where a
> minimum voltage is necessary to actually drive a circuit.
Please bone up on the photoelectric effect. Please also bone up on
blackbody spectra and why Planck figured out what he did.
>
> As I say, I think it's clear from the quantum eraser experiment that
> what you're dealing with is not a self-contained particle, but some
> sort of energy field which has no discrete boundary, and when a photon
> is detected in some sense energy is being drawn from that field, the
> origin of which is not from either slit in particular, but from a
> contribution of both.
When you can come up with a model that lets you *calculate* the
results seen the way that quantum mechanics does it, then you may have
a case.
>
> Obviously, as someone with a purely armchair interest in the subject,
> I'm not pretending to have all the answers, but clearly there has got
> to be a change in the way we think of EMR and the characteristics that
> we attribute to it - as opposed to talking of a photon being "in two
> places at once" or, heaven forfend, "effects preceding causes".
This is called Rejection by Incredulity.
In science, this is a big no-no.
EVERY model, no matter how outlandish its presuppositions, is
entertained in science PROVIDED that it allows one to make specific
and quantitative predictions of *measurable* quantities in
experimental observation. That is, the model must say something of
this sort: "If this model is correct and you set up an experiment such
that circumstances A, B, and C apply, then you WILL see the quantity X
take the value Q," where there are particulars inserted for all the
shorthand letters I have there. Note that the statement "you WILL see"
is much stronger than "then it is conceivable that you might see".
If a model does the above and successfully matches observations, then
NO MATTER HOW CRAZY the suppositions appear, then that model is
accepted.
This is not as loony as it sounds. Novices think this admits things
like models involving little green fairies. But there are no models
with little green fairies that make *specific and quantitative
predictions of measurable quantities*. If such a model involving
little green fairies DID allow you to make specific and quantitative
predictions of measurable quantities, and experiment bore out those
predictions, then -- voila -- you have fully scientifically sound
evidence for the existence of little green fairies.
I get the sense that you think this is lunacy. But this is precisely
how science works AND SHOULD WORK.
Ste
"Aim" it in what sense?
> > I suspect a "single photon" does not actually represent some
> > fundamental physical quantity of EM radiation, but instead represents
> > some minimum 'potential' that is necessary to have a transfer of
> > energy - obviously I'm drawing an analogy from electronics where a
> > minimum voltage is necessary to actually drive a circuit.
>
> Please bone up on the photoelectric effect. Please also bone up on
> blackbody spectra and why Planck figured out what he did.
I'm afraid I couldn't see anything obviously contradictory to what I'm
saying.
> > As I say, I think it's clear from the quantum eraser experiment that
> > what you're dealing with is not a self-contained particle, but some
> > sort of energy field which has no discrete boundary, and when a photon
> > is detected in some sense energy is being drawn from that field, the
> > origin of which is not from either slit in particular, but from a
> > contribution of both.
>
> When you can come up with a model that lets you *calculate* the
> results seen the way that quantum mechanics does it, then you may have
> a case.
And I'm sure ultimately someone will come up with such a model.
Regardless. A theory can be predictive to some degree without being at
all correct. And there is nothing wrong with accepting that QM has a
certain degree of predictive power, without at all accepting that its
fundamental premises are correct. Personally I don't see how a theory
in which effects precede causes can possibly be "predictive", because
"predictive" implies that an effect is forecast in response to a cause.
mpc755
There is no such thing as a 'quantum eraser'. A photon consists of a
wave in the aether and a 'particle'. The photon 'particle' travels a
single path while the photon aether wave travels the available paths.
In the image on the right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment
The photon aether wave is traveling the available paths while the
photon 'particle' travels a single path. Where the red and blue paths
are combined, the physical waves in the aether combine and create
interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels,
creating an interference pattern.
I think the 'particle' is the photon aether wave's ability to collapse
and be detected as a quantum of aether, but the main point I am trying
to make is there is a physical wave in the aether associated with a
photon and when the photon interacts with the slits, the physical wave
propagates through both slits. The physical waves propagate along both
the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves
create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle'
travels.
mpc755
>
> The photon aether wave is traveling the available paths while the
> photon 'particle' travels a single path. Where the red and blue paths
> are combined, the physical waves in the aether combine and create
> interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels,
> creating an interference pattern.
>
> I think the 'particle' is the photon aether wave's ability to collapse
> and be detected as a quantum of aether, but the main point I am trying
> to make is there is a physical wave in the aether associated with a
> photon and when the photon interacts with the slits, the physical wave
> propagates through both slits. The physical waves propagate along both
> the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves
> create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle'
> travels.
>
When a double slit experiment is performed with a single photon, a
physical wave in the aether enters and exits both slits and what makes
the photon able to be detected as a particle enters and exits a single
slit.
The aether waves exiting the slits create interference which alters
the direction the 'particle' travels.
When you perform the experiment over and over again with individual
photons, the photons will add up to create an interference pattern on
the screen.
If you place a detector at one of the exits to the slits and it does
not detect the photon, it has just destroyed the cohesion of the
physical wave in the aether exiting that slit and there is nothing for
the physical wave in the aether exiting the other slit to interfere
with.
In a double slit experiment with a photon, waves in the aether
physically exit both slits.
PD
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm curious what you think Newton's 3rd law says about this situation.
PD
In the same sense that a laser beam is aimed at a diffraction grating
or an electron beam is aimed at a diffraction crystal. I suggest you
do some googling.
>
> > > I suspect a "single photon" does not actually represent some
> > > fundamental physical quantity of EM radiation, but instead represents
> > > some minimum 'potential' that is necessary to have a transfer of
> > > energy - obviously I'm drawing an analogy from electronics where a
> > > minimum voltage is necessary to actually drive a circuit.
>
> > Please bone up on the photoelectric effect. Please also bone up on
> > blackbody spectra and why Planck figured out what he did.
>
> I'm afraid I couldn't see anything obviously contradictory to what I'm
> saying.
Then I'm afraid you haven't captured the problem with the
photoelectric effect or the blackbody spectrum to understand why the
quantum of light was a solution. Do you need some reading references?
>
> > > As I say, I think it's clear from the quantum eraser experiment that
> > > what you're dealing with is not a self-contained particle, but some
> > > sort of energy field which has no discrete boundary, and when a photon
> > > is detected in some sense energy is being drawn from that field, the
> > > origin of which is not from either slit in particular, but from a
> > > contribution of both.
>
> > When you can come up with a model that lets you *calculate* the
> > results seen the way that quantum mechanics does it, then you may have
> > a case.
>
> And I'm sure ultimately someone will come up with such a model.
OK, I'll make a comment about this below.
And here is where the saying "the proof of the pudding is in the
eating" comes in. Believe me, physicists at the turn of the 20th
century were of comparable mind to yours. They simply could not
believe that any theory that tossed such basic notions could possibly
be acceptable. To chuck those basic notions was tantamount to having a
theory of little green fairies that operated by magic rather than by
physical principle, in their minds. But this is precisely the point I
just made. If there is a model that assumes the presence of little
green fairies, and with that model you can make accurate statements
about what will be observed about quantity X in the event of
circumstances A, B, and C -- especially if that model succeeds where
other models do not -- then the model with little green fairies WINS
in science. It's a performance metric, rather than an acceptable
plausibility metric.
Your approach is different. You apply an acceptable plausibility
metric FIRST, rejecting the model that doesn't meet your standards of
acceptable plausibility, regardless of its performance as a predictive
model. You'd rather just have faith that SURELY someone will discover
the model that has both acceptable plausibility AND performs well in
prediction, and you'd rather sit and wait for that one to show up.
Science does not operate that way. What it has learned over the course
of time is that sometimes presumptions about what is acceptably
plausible turn out to be just bogus assumptions on our part about how
nature "surely must work", when in fact nature doesn't give a damn
what we think she should do. And so we have stopped applying that
"acceptable plausibility" cut on models, and instead have MODIFIED our
presumptions about how nature works. There are lots of instances of
this: strict determinism, strict time ordering of causality,
continuous smoothness of space and time, flatness of space, the notion
that only matter has properties and space is devoid of properties, and
on and on and on.
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2eb72f0-9808-4a80...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
=============================================
No you are not. You are completely clueless about wave-particle
duality and what causes it (wave superposition), to you it's all a
big mystery and you delight in mysteries. Join up the dots and
you'd see the picture.
For the benefit of lurkers:
The first dot is the Copernican principle of relativity that
Galileo explained so carefully. We use that to say that although
we see the sun cross the sky, it is the Earth that is turning daily.
The second dot is Huygens's waves, but they move downstream
with the flow of the river. If you don't believe it, drop a stone
in from a bridge and watch.
The third dot is Newton's third law. You can see that in phased
array radar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmnaPvAvQY&NR=1
Androcles' third law is "For every photon there is an equal and
opposite rephoton" but it is really Newton's third law in a situation
you are not familiar with.
Now join up the dots.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
You only see the photon that goes away from you if you have
a mirror to reflect it back in your direction.
Your mind can't understand it, though. You are trapped inside
the academic box with your head up your arse looking around
for an equation written in a paper that you can quote from and
cite and say "Professor Fouqwitz Ph.D. said so!" You have
no interest in how Nature works.
http://innumerableworlds.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dopp-shifts-spectra.jpg
Ste
> On Jan 6, 6:49 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > But so does water, in that it can be separated into
> > > > discrete packets (obviously, I'm talking about the behaviour of a
> > > > substantial volume of water), and yet clearly at a high tide water
> > > > will come through every gap in a wave-break, not just a single gap.
>
> > > What is remarkable is that if you take a SINGLE molecule of water and
> > > aim it at gaps in a wave-break, you will ALSO get wavelike
> > > interference patterns on the other side. This is confirmed
> > > experimentally and is one of the big surprises by nature in the last
> > > century.
>
> > "Aim" it in what sense?
>
> In the same sense that a laser beam is aimed at a diffraction grating
> or an electron beam is aimed at a diffraction crystal. I suggest you
> do some googling.
You know discussion with you PD is rendered wildly unproductive by
your constant allusion to, instead of expression of, facts that you
believe are relevant. I realise you probably don't want to spend all
day explaining the basics to someone who has considerably less
detailed knowledge than you, but you're going to have to at least
outline what sort of setup is used to aim and detect the water
particle to which you refer - in other words, explain how the
experiment works, or give a link to somewhere where the setup of such
an experiment is explained.
> > > > I suspect a "single photon" does not actually represent some
> > > > fundamental physical quantity of EM radiation, but instead represents
> > > > some minimum 'potential' that is necessary to have a transfer of
> > > > energy - obviously I'm drawing an analogy from electronics where a
> > > > minimum voltage is necessary to actually drive a circuit.
>
> > > Please bone up on the photoelectric effect. Please also bone up on
> > > blackbody spectra and why Planck figured out what he did.
>
> > I'm afraid I couldn't see anything obviously contradictory to what I'm
> > saying.
>
> Then I'm afraid you haven't captured the problem with the
> photoelectric effect or the blackbody spectrum to understand why the
> quantum of light was a solution.
That is because you didn't explain it at all in the first place - you
merely name-dropped a few related concepts.
> Do you need some reading references?
If they are links which I can freely access, yes.
As I've said, the real problem here is more fundamental than one which
can be subjected to tests. I don't deny the maths of quantum
mechanics, or the observed outcome of experiments. The outcome is
there for all to see. What I question is the interpretation of what is
being observed.
> Your approach is different. You apply an acceptable plausibility
> metric FIRST, rejecting the model that doesn't meet your standards of
> acceptable plausibility, regardless of its performance as a predictive
> model. You'd rather just have faith that SURELY someone will discover
> the model that has both acceptable plausibility AND performs well in
> prediction, and you'd rather sit and wait for that one to show up.
As I say, I see the problem as being that a test of physical
plausability *isn't* being applied to current interpretations, and
that is why theoretical physics doesn't seem to have moved forward for
50 years or more.
> Science does not operate that way. What it has learned over the course
> of time is that sometimes presumptions about what is acceptably
> plausible turn out to be just bogus assumptions on our part about how
> nature "surely must work", when in fact nature doesn't give a damn
> what we think she should do. And so we have stopped applying that
> "acceptable plausibility" cut on models, and instead have MODIFIED our
> presumptions about how nature works. There are lots of instances of
> this: strict determinism, strict time ordering of causality,
> continuous smoothness of space and time, flatness of space, the notion
> that only matter has properties and space is devoid of properties, and
> on and on and on.
The fact is, what we observe has not changed. Only our interpretations
of what we observe have changed. I know enough about history and
politics to know that the broader ideology of society always informs
all areas of study. And to a large extent you're right that my views
would be at home in the 19th century, but that is partly because it
was during the 19th century that probably the greatest emphasis was
put on explaining all physical things in terms of being systematic and
mechanical, and since then it has been politically necessary to wind
down from that position.
Incidentally, I read earlier about a concept called "superdeterminism"
as an answer to the problems of QM. Information on the issue seems
quite sparse, so I'll have to put some time into researching the
matter, but it was telling that John Bell framed the issue thus: that
"superdeterminism" implies a "complete absence of free will", and he
suggested that this was an "improbable" explanation.
And that basically sums up the problem that I identified at the start,
that because our society is ideologically reliant on concepts like
"free will", few people put any effort at all into considering the
possibility of an explanation that denies the existence of free will.
Of course, I have no problem with the notion that people work like
clockwork, because it is in fact the clockwork-likeness of people that
makes their behaviour consistent and predictable in a broad sense.
Indeed, it is the clockwork-likeness of the world itself that makes
the world predictable, and allows us to behave purposefully in it.
And of course, people like you who are already at home with the
concept of "free will", and who don't see the world as being clockwork-
like, well QM is a quite satisfactory answer for them, and there is no
need to seriously consider determinist alternatives that they consider
"improbable" if not absurd. You pretty much said yourself that you
reject the 19th century approach to the world in terms of "cogs and
levers", because you don't want the world to be as cold and mechanical
as that necessarily implies.
You claim somehow PD that QM is 'the best we've got', and that it
deserves credit for being predictive. But to me, that is just evidence
of the fact that for nearly 100 years people who fundamentally accept
the tenets of QM have been hard at work ironing out the theory,
whereas the people who reject the tenets of QM, like Einstein, were
pretty much in a minority and remain so to this day, and so not nearly
as much work has been put into developing the more concrete, physical,
form of theoretical physics. And to be clear, the reason why more work
has gone into developing QM is because many scientists are
ideologically committed to concepts like "free will", and scientific
theories that leave room for such concepts are far more attractive to
such scientists (and thus they will put more work into developing
them).
PD
http://www.uvm.edu/~mfuris/QUANTUM_PHYSLETS/contents/need_quantum/waves_particles/section5_5.html
You could try googling "simulation double slit"
You're right, I don't want to be explaining the basics to you all day,
and I don't want to overcome your serious shortcomings on even being
able to research free resources on the internet. The reality is that
if you want to LEARN something, then you won't do it on the free
internet. If you CHOOSE to limit your materials to what you can find
for free on the internet, then you are CHOOSING to have at best an
interested lay person's slipshod grasp of the subject.
>
> > > > > I suspect a "single photon" does not actually represent some
> > > > > fundamental physical quantity of EM radiation, but instead represents
> > > > > some minimum 'potential' that is necessary to have a transfer of
> > > > > energy - obviously I'm drawing an analogy from electronics where a
> > > > > minimum voltage is necessary to actually drive a circuit.
>
> > > > Please bone up on the photoelectric effect. Please also bone up on
> > > > blackbody spectra and why Planck figured out what he did.
>
> > > I'm afraid I couldn't see anything obviously contradictory to what I'm
> > > saying.
>
> > Then I'm afraid you haven't captured the problem with the
> > photoelectric effect or the blackbody spectrum to understand why the
> > quantum of light was a solution.
>
> That is because you didn't explain it at all in the first place - you
> merely name-dropped a few related concepts.
Hoping that you would be able to do a little work on your own before
opening your mouth about it again.
I get the idea that you are more interested spending your time talking
about what's already in your head than you are occupying your head
with any new or interesting information. If you were the latter, there
would be a little more time between your posts while you went off and
looked up some things.
>
> > Do you need some reading references?
>
> If they are links which I can freely access, yes.
See my comment above. By your CHOICE of materials, you are CHOOSING
your level of understanding.
I'll give you a brief capsule -- and I mean brief -- of the problem
posed by the photoelectric effect. This is by no means the lynchpin to
the quantum mechanical understanding of light. It is just one of many
different bits of information that was used to come to that
understanding.
In the photoelectric effect, there are several observations that are
puzzling, if put in the context of a continuum delivery of energy by
light via a wave:
1. There is no time delay in the release of electrons from the
surface, and certainly none that is intensity-dependent. The
continuous wave model of light insists that there would be an
intensity-dependent delay.
2. The maximum energy of the ejected electrons is independent of the
intensity of the light and is dependent on the wavelength of the
light. The continuous wave model of light insists that the maximum
energy would be dependent on the intensity, so that a bright red light
would produce the same current as a dim blue light.
3. There is a maximum wavelength of light beyond which there is no
ejection of electrons at all. The continuous wave model of light says
that there would be no maximum wavelength, and that simply increasing
the intensity would restore the ejection of the electrons.
4. The rate of electrons produced is dependent on the intensity of the
light and is independent of the wavelength of the light, as long as
the wavelength is below maximum. The continuous wave model of light
insist that the current would be dependent on the wavelength as well,
so that a bright red light would produce the same current as a dim
blue light.
In short, there are a number of problems with ANY theory that says
that the energy delivered is proportional to the size of the field in
that spot.
Just a modicum of online research should have made this clear to you,
and I'm certain that even a freshman chemistry book that you could
find in the public library or on the shelves of a used book store
would have made it ABUNDANTLY clear, had you chosen to look for it.
The interpretation is the model that is used to account for those
observations.
As I said, if there is a model available that fits your aversion to
little green fairies and is STILL capable of accounting for those
measurements QUANTITATIVELY, then by all means trot it out. But it's a
bit disingenuous to say that the one with little green fairies just
can't be right, when it works.
I also want to point out that the math of each of these theories comes
directly from the physical model of these theories and cannot be
separated from them. The math is in fact DERIVED from the model. So
you can't just say, well, just swap out the physical model but keep
the math. Doesn't work that way. Ditch a physical model and you ditch
the math, and a new physical model needs to have its own math derived
from it.
>
> > Your approach is different. You apply an acceptable plausibility
> > metric FIRST, rejecting the model that doesn't meet your standards of
> > acceptable plausibility, regardless of its performance as a predictive
> > model. You'd rather just have faith that SURELY someone will discover
> > the model that has both acceptable plausibility AND performs well in
> > prediction, and you'd rather sit and wait for that one to show up.
>
> As I say, I see the problem as being that a test of physical
> plausability *isn't* being applied to current interpretations, and
> that is why theoretical physics doesn't seem to have moved forward for
> 50 years or more.
That's precisely what I just said. To you, acceptable plausibility is
a first-cut filter for YOU. It is not (and never has been) for
physics. For as long as physics has been a science, following the
scientific method, then the metric is what I described above and does
NOT use "acceptable plausibility" as a filter. And it should not.
>
> > Science does not operate that way. What it has learned over the course
> > of time is that sometimes presumptions about what is acceptably
> > plausible turn out to be just bogus assumptions on our part about how
> > nature "surely must work", when in fact nature doesn't give a damn
> > what we think she should do. And so we have stopped applying that
> > "acceptable plausibility" cut on models, and instead have MODIFIED our
> > presumptions about how nature works. There are lots of instances of
> > this: strict determinism, strict time ordering of causality,
> > continuous smoothness of space and time, flatness of space, the notion
> > that only matter has properties and space is devoid of properties, and
> > on and on and on.
>
> The fact is, what we observe has not changed. Only our interpretations
> of what we observe have changed.
This is simply incorrect.
I'll give you a simple example of how this works.
For centuries we had a simple way of handling how the same set of
events looks to different measurers in different reference frames. For
example, if I'm sitting in a car and chuck a ball forward at 5 m/s,
and I want to know how fast that ball is going as seen by someone on
the street watching the car go by at 30 m/s, then a rule that seemed
to work really well was to just add the speeds, so that v_tot = v1 +
v2 = 5 m/s + 30 m/s. By "work", I mean that the sum actually agreed
well with the speed as *measured* by someone on the street. And for
all the events that we cared to look at, this seemed to work admirably
well, so well that we assumed that it was an exact rule, and in fact
much of our mechanics was organized so that this HAD to be the case.
Then we took a look at some cases where the speed was much higher, in
the vicinity of 200,000 km/s. And we found that this rule did not work
at all. For example, if we fired a projectile at 200,000 km/s and the
gun was moving with respect to the concrete floor in the lab at
150,000 km/s, the rule that we used above would have predicted that
the projectile would be moving at 350,000 km/s. But when you actually
MEASURE what the speed is, you find that it's 283,000 km/s. That is
not a small difference!
So the rule that works so well at low speeds and ASSUMED to work in
general does not work experimentally at different speeds. This is not
a matter of interpretation. This is new data that says the old idea is
wrong, flat wrong.
And it turns out that the way velocities combine is NOT by addition
but by a more interesting rule that goes like this:
v_tot = (v1 + v2) / (1 + v1*v2/c^2). And this then in turn cast doubt
on the laws of mechanics that demanded that the wrong rule HAD to be
right.
So how is it possible that a rule that can work so well at low speeds
still be wrong? The answer is that the wrong rule is an approximation
to the right rule, and that it's nearly impossible to tell the
difference between an approximation and the right answer in the domain
where the approximation works well. In fact, if you plug in 30 m/s and
5 m/s into the correct formula, you find out that the answer is not 35
m/s but 34.999999999999941 m/s, and now it becomes clearer why we
would have been fooled into thinking that the wrong rule was right. We
couldn't measure the difference at those speeds.
So you see, it's much more than a difference of interpretation.
What it instead is this:
1. We look at a bunch of cases A, B, C, and D and derive a rule X that
seems to match those cases.
2. We test X in more cases E, F, and G, and it works well, and it
seems like we have a winner.
3. But then we test X in cases H and I and we find that it doesn't
work at all.
4. This means we need to find a new rule Y that works in A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H and I.
5. We then test this rule in more cases J, K, L, M, and N.
It makes no difference that rule X was intuitive and rule Y is not.
Rule Y works in all cases so far, and rule X does not.
> I know enough about history and
> politics to know that the broader ideology of society always informs
> all areas of study. And to a large extent you're right that my views
> would be at home in the 19th century, but that is partly because it
> was during the 19th century that probably the greatest emphasis was
> put on explaining all physical things in terms of being systematic and
> mechanical,
Because that set of notions was sufficient to explain things up to
that point. But then those rules started to not work well....
> and since then it has been politically necessary to wind
> down from that position.
>
> Incidentally, I read earlier about a concept called "superdeterminism"
> as an answer to the problems of QM. Information on the issue seems
> quite sparse, so I'll have to put some time into researching the
> matter, but it was telling that John Bell framed the issue thus: that
> "superdeterminism" implies a "complete absence of free will", and he
> suggested that this was an "improbable" explanation.
I know about this. This is not physics. It is mumbo-jumbo loosely
associated with physics. This is a good example of the garbage that an
amateur gets confused by while browsing the internet without a tuned
bullshit meter.
>
> And that basically sums up the problem that I identified at the start,
> that because our society is ideologically reliant on concepts like
> "free will", few people put any effort at all into considering the
> possibility of an explanation that denies the existence of free will.
> Of course, I have no problem with the notion that people work like
> clockwork, because it is in fact the clockwork-likeness of people that
> makes their behaviour consistent and predictable in a broad sense.
> Indeed, it is the clockwork-likeness of the world itself that makes
> the world predictable, and allows us to behave purposefully in it.
>
> And of course, people like you who are already at home with the
> concept of "free will", and who don't see the world as being clockwork-
> like, well QM is a quite satisfactory answer for them, and there is no
> need to seriously consider determinist alternatives that they consider
> "improbable" if not absurd. You pretty much said yourself that you
> reject the 19th century approach to the world in terms of "cogs and
> levers", because you don't want the world to be as cold and mechanical
> as that necessarily implies.
I have no problem with determinism and free will, and quantum
mechanics does not buy back free will, despite what that claptrap
might claim.
>
> You claim somehow PD that QM is 'the best we've got', and that it
> deserves credit for being predictive. But to me, that is just evidence
> of the fact that for nearly 100 years people who fundamentally accept
> the tenets of QM have been hard at work ironing out the theory,
> whereas the people who reject the tenets of QM, like Einstein, were
> pretty much in a minority and remain so to this day,
That's actually NOT the case. In the time of Einstein, Einstein was in
the MAJORITY, and only a few were advocates of quantum mechanics.
Einstein in fact proposed the seminal test that would determine
whether he (and others) were right and quantum mechanics was wrong, or
vice versa. This is the so-called EPR paper (Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen),
which you can look up. Einstein made a reputational bet that if this
experiment were actually set up, it would go the way other than
quantum mechanics predicted. Then Alain Aspect actually set it up
after Einstein's death, and Einstein lost the bet. Einstein deserves
credit for clearly seeing the test that would discern the answer
unambiguously. Had he been alive, I have little doubt that he would
have raised his eyebrows and then have been convinced that QM was
right after all.
Anti Vigilante
> "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c2eb72f0-9808-4a80-88dd-
aaaff2...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 5, 10:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote:
>> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6322af9b-89f0-4917-
b973-520...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 5, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The QM prediction is two completely distinct photon
>>
Actually conservation of momentum in pair particle annihilation requires
pairs of photons unless the paths of more than 2 have radial symmetry. 1
photon cannot have radial symmetry to itself but if there is a mediating
charged particle near the annihilation its momenum-wise conservation
possible to only have one photon while the charged particle is
accelerated. Some might argue that below a threshold there are 2 photons,
at the threshold there is one, and below there is a field effect that
accelerates the charged particle.
>> No it is not. You need to learn how to do some quantum mechanics.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes it is. You need to learn Newton's third law. In fact you need to
>> learn physics instead of reciting crap.
>
> I'm curious what you think Newton's 3rd law says about this situation.
> ============================================= No you are not. You are
> completely clueless about wave-particle duality and what causes it (wave
> superposition), to you it's all a big mystery and you delight in
> mysteries. Join up the dots and you'd see the picture.
I'm partial to Ritz, the mentor Einstein almost had. I find that story
fascinating. His delayed potentials jive with my ideas (see Recreational
Fundamental Physics thread) but I think I can make the infinite flux of
force-stuff vanish.
> For the benefit of lurkers:
>
> The first dot is the Copernican principle of relativity that Galileo
> explained so carefully. We use that to say that although we see the sun
> cross the sky, it is the Earth that is turning daily.
Like DUH.
> The second dot is Huygens's waves, but they move downstream with the
> flow of the river. If you don't believe it, drop a stone in from a
> bridge and watch.
As long as a wave is in something.
> The third dot is Newton's third law. You can see that in phased array
> radar.
If I said that motion implies a constant ripping and resewing of space,
would that be too much?
--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
mpc755
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:04:35 +0000, Androcles wrote:
> > "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> aaaff2107...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...> On Jan 5, 10:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote:
> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:6322af9b-89f0-4917-
>
>
> >> On Jan 5, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The QM prediction is two completely distinct photon
>
> Actually conservation of momentum in pair particle annihilation requires
> pairs of photons unless the paths of more than 2 have radial symmetry. 1
> photon cannot have radial symmetry to itself but if there is a mediating
> charged particle near the annihilation its momenum-wise conservation
> possible to only have one photon while the charged particle is
> accelerated. Some might argue that below a threshold there are 2 photons,
> at the threshold there is one, and below there is a field effect that
> accelerates the charged particle.
>
I'm not sure you understood the experiment I am proposing. Two
separate photons each interact with their own double slit apparatus.
Each double slit apparatus has a detector at the exit to one of the
slits. A photon is detected at the detector at the exit to one of the
slits in its double slit apparatus and the other photon is not
detected at the exit to one of the slits in its double slit apparatus.
After this occurs, there is a photon traveling a single path, and in
AD, the aether wave associated with the detected photon propagating a
single path. When the photon and aether wave paths are combined, in
AD, interference occurs.
The question is, what does QM predict for this experiment.
Specifically, is the expected results different than AD.
p - photon
d - detector
| - double slit apparatus
Step 1:
|
|
d (photon detected here)
p---> |
(AD: physical aether wave, QM: nothing)
|
|
|
|
|
(AD: photon aether wave and 'particle', QM: photon)
p---> |
d (photon not detected here)
|
|
Step 2:
(AD: physical aether wave, QM: nothing)\
--> Combined
(AD: photon aether wave and 'particle', QM: photon)/
Results:
AD: Interference pattern when executed with many photons
QM: No interference pattern when executed with many photons
Androcles
"Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
news:hi6725$hel$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The third dot is Newton's third law. You can see that in phased array
>> radar.
>
> If I said <snip>
Like UGH!
If you want to snip and ignore what I write, I shall snip and ignore you.
<unsnip>
Anti Vigilante
> If you want to snip and ignore what I write, I shall snip and ignore
> you.
I snipped it because I thought it was obvious.
Anti Vigilante
> photons each interact with their own double slit apparatus. Each double
> slit apparatus has a detector at the exit to one of the slits. A photon
> is detected at the detector at the exit to one of the slits in its
> double slit apparatus and the other photon is not detected at the exit
> to one of the slits in its double slit apparatus. After this occurs,
> there is a photon traveling a single path, and in AD, the aether wave
> associated with the detected photon propagating a single path. When the
> photon and aether wave paths are combined, in AD, interference occurs.
>
You're suggesting that if you were to put the two photoscreens together
there would be an interference pattern? You do realize that photons have
a negative and a positive maximum in their waveforms. You never know if
one side hit low and the other hit high. So you might have an
interference pattern and you wouldn't know.
Androcles
>> I'm not sure you understood the experiment I am proposing. Two separate
>> photons each interact with their own double slit apparatus. Each double
>> slit apparatus has a detector at the exit to one of the slits. A photon
>> is detected at the detector at the exit to one of the slits in its
>> double slit apparatus and the other photon is not detected at the exit
>> to one of the slits in its double slit apparatus. After this occurs,
>> there is a photon traveling a single path, and in AD, the aether wave
>> associated with the detected photon propagating a single path. When the
>> photon and aether wave paths are combined, in AD, interference occurs.
>>
>
Androcles
>> Like UGH!
>> If you want to snip and ignore what I write, I shall snip and ignore
>> you.
>
Anti Vigilante
Seriously, chill man. I wasn't ignoring you. I thought what you posted
was obvious and that it would be confusing for the question I asked.
Anti Vigilante
Ok now this is silly.