187 views

Skip to first unread message

Jan 4, 2021, 4:49:11 AM1/4/21

to

Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?

I realize that it is difficult to get funding for things like those, but

at least in some cases the corresponding experiment shouldn't be too

expensive.

expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?

I realize that it is difficult to get funding for things like those, but

at least in some cases the corresponding experiment shouldn't be too

expensive.

Jan 4, 2021, 11:19:32 PM1/4/21

to

On 21/01/04 10:49 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

Are you referring to the muon g-2 experiment? Or what other results
> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

are there to indicate this?

> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

> strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?

Testing the short-range part of gravity at the lab-experiment scale

would basically be testing Newton's theory, and departures from 1/r^2

have been looked for. Also EÃ¶tvÃ¶s' experiment has often been checked.

I think we need even more basic examples to find something new!

> I realize that it is difficult to get funding for things like those, but

> at least in some cases the corresponding experiment shouldn't be too

> expensive.

Ohm's law? Has been done.. (Hall effect, SQUIDs, tunneling, "break

junctions" etc..)

Maybe Maxwell?! Non-linearity at high field-strength is predicted by

QED but has it been tested? And coupling to the axion might also give

low-energy departures (but ADMX is in fact looking for that..)

Conservation of energy, then? Departure from unitarity in QM?

Flatness/isotropy of space at the lab scale? That's all really basic

but I think it is already addressed by some existing experiments. The

real problem here seems to be finding something that is overlooked!

--

Jos

Jan 6, 2021, 4:06:04 PM1/6/21

to

On 1/4/21 10:19 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

^ The

all available 1,800 asteroid rotations from

The International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center

Lightcurve Parameters (2006 Mar. 14)

https://minorplanetcenter.net//iau/lists/LightcurveDat.html

The data base sorted and plotted(100 point moving average)

indicates a minimum rotation(delta hour) per rotation(hour) near

asteroids with 8 hour rotation.

Why is there a minimum

and why is it of this magnitude?

^ The

> real problem here seems to be finding something that is overlooked!

>

Here is an observation to be explained for
>

all available 1,800 asteroid rotations from

The International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center

Lightcurve Parameters (2006 Mar. 14)

https://minorplanetcenter.net//iau/lists/LightcurveDat.html

The data base sorted and plotted(100 point moving average)

indicates a minimum rotation(delta hour) per rotation(hour) near

asteroids with 8 hour rotation.

Why is there a minimum

and why is it of this magnitude?

Jan 10, 2021, 2:44:08 PM1/10/21

to

I plotted the period data and I don't see anything peculiar at 8 hours.

What I did was import all that data into Excel and sort the period

column. I then plotted the result. I'm getting a smooth curve from

about 2.3 hours up to over 200 hours, gradually increasing in slope

(i.e. fewer and fewer examples) at the high end. There is a clear step

at about 2 hours however, with relatively few examples between 0.9 and

2.2 hours.

I think there is good reason for there to be discontinuities in this

data. One is observational: The measurement techniques might not work

well for very slow or very fast rotations. Another is physical: Many

of these objects are "dirty snowballs" and very fast rotation would

cause them to fly apart. This data set does not give insight into the

sizes objects, but I would expect very small objects to not be

represented well as they are dim, and as there might very well be a

correlation between size, brightness and rotation speed, there might be

artifacts in the data set that aren't real.

If this problem interests you, you are encouraged to investigate it!

There might be something of interest there.

Rich L.

Jan 11, 2021, 3:38:59 AM1/11/21

to

On 21/01/06 10:06 PM, Richard D. Saam wrote:

> On 1/4/21 10:19 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> ^ The

>> real problem here seems to be finding something that is overlooked!

>>

>

> Here is an observation to be explained for

> all available 1,800 asteroid rotations from

> The International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center

> Lightcurve Parameters (2006 Mar. 14)

> https://minorplanetcenter.net//iau/lists/LightcurveDat.html

> The data base sorted and plotted(100 point moving average)

I don't see a plot in your link.. (and reading it gives errors
> On 1/4/21 10:19 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> ^ The

>> real problem here seems to be finding something that is overlooked!

>>

>

> Here is an observation to be explained for

> all available 1,800 asteroid rotations from

> The International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center

> Lightcurve Parameters (2006 Mar. 14)

> https://minorplanetcenter.net//iau/lists/LightcurveDat.html

> The data base sorted and plotted(100 point moving average)

at e.g. Weringia and Oppavia where numbers are missing..)

> indicates a minimum rotation(delta hour) per rotation(hour) near

> asteroids with 8 hour rotation.

else what quantities is the sentence trying to describe?

> Why is there a minimum

> and why is it of this magnitude?

period (for those that are readable, and using the geometric mean

where a range for the variation is given) then this is the result:

<http://bergervo.home.xs4all.nl/out5.png>

Does this show what you mean?

--

Jos

Jan 18, 2021, 1:16:15 PM1/18/21

to

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

>

> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom
> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

>

> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does

decay have a probability distribution.

The rate of decay in an exponential function leads to a

non-converging function. I might submit that it is exponential,

but has a time variable called "last atom decayed".

The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies

an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?

But, at some time the last atom.

Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiency

will the number of counts ever equal the number of

atoms.

basically needing mathematical solution. How to solve

this dilemma? I am still open on this question but

submit it as a version of the halving distances function

dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever

do you ever finally reach the object?"

Or attack it by doing axis or time transform.

Jan 18, 2021, 4:34:35 PM1/18/21

to

On 21/01/18 7:16 PM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

>> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

>> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

>> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

>> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

>> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

>>

>> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

>> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

>> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

>> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

>

> given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom

> the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does

> decay have a probability distribution.

"Probability" is only required if you insist upon a "collapse"
> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

>> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

>> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

>> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

>> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

>> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

>>

>> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

>> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

>> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

>> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

>

> given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom

> the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does

> decay have a probability distribution.

of the state in QM. But that is now an almost untenable view.

If you just accept that the universe is a superposition of

different branches, as QM literally describes it, then there

is no randomness and "probability" will play no fundamental

role. You just will have the amplitude of one branch decaying

exponentially (and never becoming zero).

NB: of course probability would still be a useful concept for

describing large collections of objects or events, just like

it was in classical physics, but no fundamental need for it

would exist.

> ...

> The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies

> an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?

I don't see how it necessarily "implies" that. It simply states
> an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?

that the amplitude of the state with an excited atom gradually

decreases in the total superposition of the state of the

universe, while the that of the state with the decayed atom

increases.

> But, at some time the last atom.

exists.

> Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiency

> will the number of counts ever equal the number of

> atoms.

universe where all atoms have decayed, there it equals that

number! Already at the beginning of the counting (but at the

beginning the amplitude of that component in the superposition

is very low.)

> basically needing mathematical solution. How to solve

> this dilemma?

an interpretation, but a pure *rejection* of the gradual,

unitary time-evolution described by the equations of QM.)

> ... I am still open on this question but

> submit it as a version of the halving distances function

> dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever

> do you ever finally reach the object?"

That answer is known: you do reach it if your halving of the
> dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever

> do you ever finally reach the object?"

distance becomes faster at a sufficient rate every time you

do it. And otherwise you don't reach it. Just sum the times..

> Or attack it by doing axis or time transform.

interesting field of study, especially the cases where the

time-span is billions of years. How can QM describe such a

slow process, given all the influence from the environment..

Why isn't the transition stimulated by external radiation,

etc.? But those are just questions within the gradual change

mechanism of the Hilbert space state.

See the references given below Matt O'Dowd's latest video:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5HyMNNSGqQ>

--

Jos

Jan 23, 2021, 12:50:10 PM1/23/21

to

directly to a declining exponential function for the number of atoms

which have not yet decayed. Of course, that is exactly true only in the

limit of an infinite number of atoms. If the number becomes to small,

then the noise in the function becomes large enough to obscure the

behaviour in the limit. When you are down to one atom, it is still the

case that the probability that it will decay is independent of time. So

you have no idea when it will decay.

Jan 24, 2021, 3:31:06 PM1/24/21

to

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de>

wrote:

> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

>

> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> radiation law been experimentally verified?

Very well, given that the cosmic black body radiation has been measured

in great detail to better than a millikelvin.

> Or that radioactive decay

> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

> strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?

Eotvos also has been verified to grat precision.

> I realize that it is difficult to get funding for things like those, but

> at least in some cases the corresponding experiment shouldn't be too

> expensive.

You should realise that a lot of that testing is implicit.

The design of all experiments takes the laws of physics,

as we know them, for granted.

If there really is something wrong with those laws

the experiments would not behave as expected,

and then people would start to search for causes.

For example, LIGO takes general and special relativity for granted.

So there really is no point in wringing yet another verification

of Michelson-Morley out of it. (and others can do it much better)

A mention in Guiness book of records as the largest M&M experiment ever

really isn't worth the trouble.

Moreover, confirming the well-known is not without risk.

If you fail to obtain the 'right' result

people will not doubt the result,

they will doubt your competence as an experimentalist.

You can think of the Italian 'speed of neutrinos' experiment

that found greater than light speeds from CERN to Gran Sasso

as a particularly sad example.

'Everybody' with standing told them that this just cannot be right.

And indeed it wasn't, and the team leader resigned in disgrace,

Jan

wrote:

> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

>

> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> radiation law been experimentally verified?

in great detail to better than a millikelvin.

> Or that radioactive decay

> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

> strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?

> I realize that it is difficult to get funding for things like those, but

> at least in some cases the corresponding experiment shouldn't be too

> expensive.

The design of all experiments takes the laws of physics,

as we know them, for granted.

If there really is something wrong with those laws

the experiments would not behave as expected,

and then people would start to search for causes.

For example, LIGO takes general and special relativity for granted.

So there really is no point in wringing yet another verification

of Michelson-Morley out of it. (and others can do it much better)

A mention in Guiness book of records as the largest M&M experiment ever

really isn't worth the trouble.

Moreover, confirming the well-known is not without risk.

If you fail to obtain the 'right' result

people will not doubt the result,

they will doubt your competence as an experimentalist.

You can think of the Italian 'speed of neutrinos' experiment

that found greater than light speeds from CERN to Gran Sasso

as a particularly sad example.

'Everybody' with standing told them that this just cannot be right.

And indeed it wasn't, and the team leader resigned in disgrace,

Jan

Jan 25, 2021, 6:02:36 PM1/25/21

to

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 4:34:35 PM UTC-5, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> On 21/01/18 7:16 PM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

> On 21/01/18 7:16 PM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

> > On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

> >> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> >> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> >> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> >> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> >> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

> >>

> >> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> >> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> >> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

> >> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

> >

> >> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> >> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> >> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> >> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> >> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

> >>

> >> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> >> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> >> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

> >> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

> >

> > given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom

> > the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does

> > decay have a probability distribution.

> > the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does

> > decay have a probability distribution.

> "Probability" is only required if you insist upon a "collapse"

> of the state in QM. But that is now an almost untenable view.

> If you just accept that the universe is a superposition of

> different branches, as QM literally describes it, then there

> is no randomness and "probability" will play no fundamental

> role. You just will have the amplitude of one branch decaying

> exponentially (and never becoming zero).

>

> NB: of course probability would still be a useful concept for

> describing large collections of objects or events, just like

> it was in classical physics, but no fundamental need for it

> would exist.

>

I am an experimentalist btw. Well my interpretation of QM
> of the state in QM. But that is now an almost untenable view.

> If you just accept that the universe is a superposition of

> different branches, as QM literally describes it, then there

> is no randomness and "probability" will play no fundamental

> role. You just will have the amplitude of one branch decaying

> exponentially (and never becoming zero).

>

> NB: of course probability would still be a useful concept for

> describing large collections of objects or events, just like

> it was in classical physics, but no fundamental need for it

> would exist.

>

is Heisenberg's. It is a complete statement when all

things are considered an abstract reservoir. Here is the

meaning of superposition. I went so far to consider the

abstract dam. And here is the meaning of all transformations

being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always

probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.

The reservoir interpretation is a theorist's verbal

communication.

> > ...

> > The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies

> > an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?

> > an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?

> I don't see how it necessarily "implies" that. It simply states

> that the amplitude of the state with an excited atom gradually

> decreases in the total superposition of the state of the

> universe, while the that of the state with the decayed atom

> increases.

I was trying state the dichotomy of the non-convergent
> that the amplitude of the state with an excited atom gradually

> decreases in the total superposition of the state of the

> universe, while the that of the state with the decayed atom

> increases.

exponential decay function with a convergent decay.

Given a set of atoms of a certain decay rate can you

detect the decay of all the atoms? Or is there a probability

of detection where sometimes you detect all the atoms decay

while sometimes not detecting all transformations.

This being the origin of atom decay detection statistics.

> > But, at some time the last atom.

> Only if you believe in a "collapse"! Otherwise no such time

> exists.

Again I was commenting a comment.
> exists.

I am not a theorist so I can't reply.

> > Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiency

> > will the number of counts ever equal the number of

> > atoms.

> > will the number of counts ever equal the number of

> > atoms.

> In those branches of the total superposition describing the

> universe where all atoms have decayed, there it equals that

> number! Already at the beginning of the counting (but at the

> beginning the amplitude of that component in the superposition

> is very low.)

Again: I am not a theorist so I can't reply.
> universe where all atoms have decayed, there it equals that

> number! Already at the beginning of the counting (but at the

> beginning the amplitude of that component in the superposition

> is very low.)

> > basically needing mathematical solution. How to solve

> > this dilemma?

> Easy: forget the Copenhagen "interpretation" (which isn't

> an interpretation, but a pure *rejection* of the gradual,

> unitary time-evolution described by the equations of QM.)

>

Yes we do have a QM theory outlook distinction.
> an interpretation, but a pure *rejection* of the gradual,

> unitary time-evolution described by the equations of QM.)

>

> > ... I am still open on this question but

> > submit it as a version of the halving distances function

> > dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever

> > do you ever finally reach the object?"

> > dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever

> > do you ever finally reach the object?"

> That answer is known: you do reach it if your halving of the

> distance becomes faster at a sufficient rate every time you

> do it. And otherwise you don't reach it. Just sum the times..

I am not sure if this is an allowed transformation of time.
> distance becomes faster at a sufficient rate every time you

> do it. And otherwise you don't reach it. Just sum the times..

> > Or attack it by doing axis or time transform.

> Attacking the description of exponential decay is indeed an

> interesting field of study, especially the cases where the

> time-span is billions of years. How can QM describe such a

> slow process, given all the influence from the environment..

> Why isn't the transition stimulated by external radiation,

> etc.? But those are just questions within the gradual change

> mechanism of the Hilbert space state.

The existence of a decay rate this slow is a testament to the
> interesting field of study, especially the cases where the

> time-span is billions of years. How can QM describe such a

> slow process, given all the influence from the environment..

> Why isn't the transition stimulated by external radiation,

> etc.? But those are just questions within the gradual change

> mechanism of the Hilbert space state.

dynamic range of measurement. This is like the mystery to

the clarity of the heavens or DNA.

Transforming exponential decay might be possible. The

atoms always have an integer value and commonly have a real

x-axis time value. Is this allowed? The time to the last

atom just might be termed convergent. So maybe take this time

and divide to integers? Using a time transform to

ensure time units greater than one. I have no clue mathematically

on legal restating.

You do have to consider here the

distinction of stochastic measure as opposed to non-stochastic

decay constants. It is basically the origin of the implication

of atom set lifetimes. You can have a sample created by a fast

pulse of say neutrons, or a case of a constant rate of neutrons

for a period, or a case of non-uniform irradiation. I would

submit that priory of the production function is demanded

to measure the decay constant. Just think of knowing such sets

distributed in the whole sample of production. There is

no a priory of location. A set of atom sets confounds the systems

decay function measure.

So waiting around for N=1 to decay is an important interpretation

to consider. Given n=1 you can not measure the decay constant. You

can not measure a time of creation. You can not infer the existence

of a decay product's causal event. A unit one has no measurable

statistical event distribution. Maybe waiting around for a zero event

is a waste of time.

>

> See the references given below Matt O'Dowd's latest video:

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5HyMNNSGqQ>

>

> --

> Jos

QM in its early origins. One of my points of view is that

collapse allows a very special class of information.

It can not alter the thermodynamics of the system other

than a spatial distribution. A human using the knowledge

is not subject t

Jan 25, 2021, 6:03:28 PM1/25/21

to

In article <1p3imn8.10geog6da220gN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>, "J. J.

Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes:

> Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de>

the microwave region. It is well measured there, and a good way in

either direction, but towards higher frequencies the intensity drops

sharply. Even ignoring confusion by other sources and so on, I doubt

that it has been measured to any significant accuracy in the

ultraviolet, not to mention the gamma-ray region. (Photons here will be

few and far between.)

Yes, it looks like a perfect black body, no-one has convincingly argued

that it should be otherwise, and so on, but the question remains over

what range has that been verified.

Discussing the CMB is a bit of a red herring, because if one saw

departures from the black-body spectrum, one would suspect some

astrophysical cause. So think of lab measurements of black bodies: over

what range in frequency have they been made and to what precision?

> > Or that radioactive decay

> > really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

> > strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?

>

> You should realise that a lot of that testing is implicit.

> The design of all experiments takes the laws of physics,

> as we know them, for granted.

> If there really is something wrong with those laws

> the experiments would not behave as expected,

> and then people would start to search for causes.

Right, but, say, a tiny deviation from a black-body spectrum at a

frequency where no-one notices it anyway would go unnoticed.

> For example, LIGO takes general and special relativity for granted.

> So there really is no point in wringing yet another verification

> of Michelson-Morley out of it. (and others can do it much better)

> A mention in Guiness book of records as the largest M&M experiment ever

> really isn't worth the trouble.

Right, to some extent. One can actually use LIGO to contrain

alternatives to GR, which implies that one does not assume GR from the

ground up. For example, Bekenstein's TeVeS theory was ruled out by LIGO

(and the follow-up observations), because it predicts significantly

different Shapiro delays for gravitational and electromagnetic

radiation.

> Moreover, confirming the well-known is not without risk.

> If you fail to obtain the 'right' result

> people will not doubt the result,

> they will doubt your competence as an experimentalist.

Maybe, but that is not good science, especially if someone confirms an

unexpected result.

> You can think of the Italian 'speed of neutrinos' experiment

> that found greater than light speeds from CERN to Gran Sasso

> as a particularly sad example.

> 'Everybody' with standing told them that this just cannot be right.

> And indeed it wasn't, and the team leader resigned in disgrace,

IIRC, they didn't actually believe that their neutrinos went faster than

the speed of light, but said that that was the result of their analysis

and solicited better explanations, which they ultimately got.

Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes:

> Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de>

> wrote:

>

> > Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> > expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> > to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> > heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> > the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

> >

> > What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> > multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> > radiation law been experimentally verified?

>

>

> > Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> > expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> > to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> > heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> > the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

> >

> > What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> > multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> > radiation law been experimentally verified?

>

> Very well, given that the cosmic black body radiation has been measured

> in great detail to better than a millikelvin.

Yes, but at what frequencies? As the name indicates, the CMB peaks in
> in great detail to better than a millikelvin.

the microwave region. It is well measured there, and a good way in

either direction, but towards higher frequencies the intensity drops

sharply. Even ignoring confusion by other sources and so on, I doubt

that it has been measured to any significant accuracy in the

ultraviolet, not to mention the gamma-ray region. (Photons here will be

few and far between.)

Yes, it looks like a perfect black body, no-one has convincingly argued

that it should be otherwise, and so on, but the question remains over

what range has that been verified.

Discussing the CMB is a bit of a red herring, because if one saw

departures from the black-body spectrum, one would suspect some

astrophysical cause. So think of lab measurements of black bodies: over

what range in frequency have they been made and to what precision?

> > Or that radioactive decay

> > really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

> > strong, Einstein) of the equivalence principle hold?

>

> Eotvos also has been verified to grat precision.

That is just the weak equivalence principle.
> You should realise that a lot of that testing is implicit.

> The design of all experiments takes the laws of physics,

> as we know them, for granted.

> If there really is something wrong with those laws

> the experiments would not behave as expected,

> and then people would start to search for causes.

frequency where no-one notices it anyway would go unnoticed.

> For example, LIGO takes general and special relativity for granted.

> So there really is no point in wringing yet another verification

> of Michelson-Morley out of it. (and others can do it much better)

> A mention in Guiness book of records as the largest M&M experiment ever

> really isn't worth the trouble.

alternatives to GR, which implies that one does not assume GR from the

ground up. For example, Bekenstein's TeVeS theory was ruled out by LIGO

(and the follow-up observations), because it predicts significantly

different Shapiro delays for gravitational and electromagnetic

radiation.

> Moreover, confirming the well-known is not without risk.

> If you fail to obtain the 'right' result

> people will not doubt the result,

> they will doubt your competence as an experimentalist.

unexpected result.

> You can think of the Italian 'speed of neutrinos' experiment

> that found greater than light speeds from CERN to Gran Sasso

> as a particularly sad example.

> 'Everybody' with standing told them that this just cannot be right.

> And indeed it wasn't, and the team leader resigned in disgrace,

the speed of light, but said that that was the result of their analysis

and solicited better explanations, which they ultimately got.

Jan 27, 2021, 6:24:26 PM1/27/21

to

On Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

> In article <d91462b6-bf4d-422c...@googlegroups.com>, Douglas Eagleson <eagleso...@gmail.com> writes:

>

> In article <d91462b6-bf4d-422c...@googlegroups.com>, Douglas Eagleson <eagleso...@gmail.com> writes:

>

> > On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

> >> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> >> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> >> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> >> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> >> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

> >>

> >> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> >> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> >> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

> >> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

> >

> >> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

> >> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according

> >> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but

> >> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not

> >> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.

> >>

> >> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,

> >> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body

> >> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay

> >> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,

> >

> > given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom

> > the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does

> > decay have a probability distribution.

> >

> > the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does

> > decay have a probability distribution.

> >

> > The rate of decay in an exponential function leads to a

> > non-converging function. I might submit that it is exponential,

> > but has a time variable called "last atom decayed".

> >

> > non-converging function. I might submit that it is exponential,

> > but has a time variable called "last atom decayed".

> >

> > The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies

> > an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?

> >

> > an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?

> >

> > But, at some time the last atom.

> >

> >

> > Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiency

> > will the number of counts ever equal the number of

> > atoms.

> >

> > will the number of counts ever equal the number of

> > atoms.

> >

> > basically needing mathematical solution. How to solve

> > this dilemma? I am still open on this question but
> > submit it as a version of the halving distances function

> > dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever

> > do you ever finally reach the object?"

> >

> > dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever

> > do you ever finally reach the object?"

> >

> > Or attack it by doing axis or time transform.

> The probability that an atom decays is constant in time. That leads

> directly to a declining exponential function for the number of atoms

> which have not yet decayed. Of course, that is exactly true only in the

> limit of an infinite number of atoms. If the number becomes to small,

> then the noise in the function becomes large enough to obscure the

> behaviour in the limit. When you are down to one atom, it is still the

> case that the probability that it will decay is independent of time. So

> you have no idea when it will decay.
> directly to a declining exponential function for the number of atoms

> which have not yet decayed. Of course, that is exactly true only in the

> limit of an infinite number of atoms. If the number becomes to small,

> then the noise in the function becomes large enough to obscure the

> behaviour in the limit. When you are down to one atom, it is still the

> case that the probability that it will decay is independent of time. So

sorry for the confusion.

wiki T1/2 and exponential decay expresses my concern.

there is a well stated law of large samples, i.e. N

Leaving the issue of mean lifetime of an atom. I just need

to study the issue of mixed sample kinetics. Also would it not be

interesting to measure mean lifetime of decay relative

to time of atom production.

Jan 28, 2021, 7:29:59 AM1/28/21

to

displacement law

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law). The median

photon wavelength is at about 1.4182 times the peak. Using Planck's law

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law) there is an

extremely-rapid drop-off on either side of this peak, whether one moves

toward the UV or the IR end of the spectrum. It is assumed (as an

`undisputed result') that Planck's law will govern without limit even at

the extreme ends of the spectrum. But does anybody know whether anybody

has ever thought to test for this (find `confirmation')?

For example, if one does the calculation, Planck's law predicts that a

single photon will be emitted with a wavelength shorter than 10% of the

Wien peak for every 3.43x10^18 photons emitted over the entire spectrum

of photons with wavelengths longer than 10% of the peak. So, whether

these UV-end photons really are emitted, or whether there is some type

of emission cutoff (not dissimilar to the photoelectric effect), is not

something anybody would stumble upon casually. Such extreme-UV photons

are needles in quintillion-photon haystacks. Somebody would have to

design and conduct a special experiment look for them.

My question is simple: Does anybody know if anybody has ever looked for

some sort of cutoff at the UV end of the blackbody spectrum, and if so,

what did they find?

[Moderator's note: That is a good question. A brief web search turned

up nothing. :-( -P.H.]

Jan 29, 2021, 11:08:25 AM1/29/21

to

from the ideal black body spectrum implies

that they can verifiy the black body spectrum

for a laboratory black black body to greater accuracy.

(they use one for calibration, iirc)

Asking about the high end tail is not very useful,

for there will always be a higher point

where it is not verified, so you can go on asking forever,

Jan

Jan 29, 2021, 1:38:45 PM1/29/21

to

In article <1p3rzqg.11e6pqz12s5pn3N%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,

from a lab measurement. Certainly the theoretical curve and the lab

measurements agree over the range in which they have been compared. But

at really high frequencies, the CMB signal isn't strong enough to

detect, and, as far as I know, no-one has measured at really high

frequencies in the lab either.

> Asking about the high end tail is not very useful,

> for there will always be a higher point

> where it is not verified, so you can go on asking forever,

That is true. But the original question was to what multiple of the

peak has it been measured in the lab?

nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:

>> Discussing the CMB is a bit of a red herring, because if one saw

>> departures from the black-body spectrum, one would suspect some

>> astrophysical cause. So think of lab measurements of black bodies: over

>> what range in frequency have they been made and to what precision?

>

> The fact that they can measure deviations of the CMB

> from the ideal black body spectrum implies

> that they can verifiy the black body spectrum

> for a laboratory black black body to greater accuracy.

> (they use one for calibration, iirc)

I'm pretty sure that any deviations are from the theoretical curve, not
>> Discussing the CMB is a bit of a red herring, because if one saw

>> departures from the black-body spectrum, one would suspect some

>> astrophysical cause. So think of lab measurements of black bodies: over

>> what range in frequency have they been made and to what precision?

>

> The fact that they can measure deviations of the CMB

> from the ideal black body spectrum implies

> that they can verifiy the black body spectrum

> for a laboratory black black body to greater accuracy.

> (they use one for calibration, iirc)

from a lab measurement. Certainly the theoretical curve and the lab

measurements agree over the range in which they have been compared. But

at really high frequencies, the CMB signal isn't strong enough to

detect, and, as far as I know, no-one has measured at really high

frequencies in the lab either.

> Asking about the high end tail is not very useful,

> for there will always be a higher point

> where it is not verified, so you can go on asking forever,

peak has it been measured in the lab?

Jan 29, 2021, 4:32:30 PM1/29/21

to

On 21/01/26 12:02 AM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

> On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 4:34:35 PM UTC-5, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

>> On 21/01/18 7:16 PM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

> On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 4:34:35 PM UTC-5, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

>> On 21/01/18 7:16 PM, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

>>> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

>>>> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

>>>> ...
>>>> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or

...

>>> given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom

>>> the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does

>>> decay have a probability distribution.

>>

>>> the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does

>>> decay have a probability distribution.

>>

>> "Probability" is only required if you insist upon a "collapse"

>> of the state in QM. But that is now an almost untenable view.

>> If you just accept that the universe is a superposition of

>> different branches, as QM literally describes it, then there

>> is no randomness and "probability" will play no fundamental

>> role. You just will have the amplitude of one branch decaying

>> exponentially (and never becoming zero).

>>

>> NB: of course probability would still be a useful concept for

>> describing large collections of objects or events, just like

>> it was in classical physics, but no fundamental need for it

>> would exist.

>>

> I am an experimentalist btw. Well my interpretation of QM

> is Heisenberg's. It is a complete statement when all

> things are considered an abstract reservoir. Here is the

> meaning of superposition. I went so far to consider the

> abstract dam. And here is the meaning of all transformations

> being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always

> probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.

Neither. It is *always* an analytical function! The wavefunction
>> of the state in QM. But that is now an almost untenable view.

>> If you just accept that the universe is a superposition of

>> different branches, as QM literally describes it, then there

>> is no randomness and "probability" will play no fundamental

>> role. You just will have the amplitude of one branch decaying

>> exponentially (and never becoming zero).

>>

>> NB: of course probability would still be a useful concept for

>> describing large collections of objects or events, just like

>> it was in classical physics, but no fundamental need for it

>> would exist.

>>

> I am an experimentalist btw. Well my interpretation of QM

> is Heisenberg's. It is a complete statement when all

> things are considered an abstract reservoir. Here is the

> meaning of superposition. I went so far to consider the

> abstract dam. And here is the meaning of all transformations

> being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always

> probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.

gradually changes from one which only has a high amplitude in one

region to one with the high amplitude in the other region (at the

other side of the barrier). There is nothing probabilistic about

that, not even in the most hard-core Copenhagen picture. Even

there, the game of chance would only start when you 'measure'

what has happened to the wavefunction, the tunneling process

itself would still be by the analytical Schrodinger equation.

> The reservoir interpretation is a theorist's verbal

> communication.

(but I'm no fan of interpretations anyway, let's just stick to the

description as it is, given by the Hamiltonian!)

>>> ...

>>> The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies

>>> an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?

>>> an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?

>> I don't see how it necessarily "implies" that. It simply states

>> that the amplitude of the state with an excited atom gradually

>> decreases in the total superposition of the state of the

>> universe, while the that of the state with the decayed atom

>> increases.

> I was trying state the dichotomy of the non-convergent

> exponential decay function with a convergent decay.

> Given a set of atoms of a certain decay rate can you

> detect the decay of all the atoms?

I agree that the question is interesting, for several reasons.
>> that the amplitude of the state with an excited atom gradually

>> decreases in the total superposition of the state of the

>> universe, while the that of the state with the decayed atom

>> increases.

> I was trying state the dichotomy of the non-convergent

> exponential decay function with a convergent decay.

> Given a set of atoms of a certain decay rate can you

> detect the decay of all the atoms?

The following three possibilities could perhaps be tested:

1)

It is all governed by the initial state of the decaying

atom, so slight deviations in its wavefunction from the ideal,

pure, excited state, will determine how long it takes before

the decay occurs. Much like when you put a pencil on its tip:

the amount of deviation from the pure vertical determines how

long it takes before it topples over.

2)

It is governed by external influences. Like the pencil

again, but now in a drafty room (or with vibrations in the

building) where those external influences create the slight

deviations and then it's back to the previous situation.

3)

Something inherently probabilistic is happening. Even if

the initial state is pure, and external influences are absent,

the decay will still occur.

If it is 1), then a special procedure, or special treatment

of the atoms (to make the excited state extremely pure, like

putting the pencil very close to vertical) should suppress

all 'quick-decay' cases.

If it is 2) then extra environmental disturbances should

lead to a quicker decay.

If it is 3) then the only proof for it would be to rule out

(without any loopholes) that it is 1) or 2).

Of course we know that in many cases 2) will occur, stimulated

emission can easily be shown. Also 1) is in fact observed as

the Quantum Zeno effect by which you can 'freeze' a system

for some limited time, so indeed the 'quick-decay' cases are

then suppressed.

Still there may be cases where it is in fact possible to show

experimentally that it can't be either 1) or 2). Personally I

wouldn't mind if such cases can *not* be found (and QM is

simply deterministic, and no interpretation or augmentation

is needed). But it's certainly something to search for..

> ...

> You do have to consider here the

> distinction of stochastic measure as opposed to non-stochastic

> decay constants.

We seem to agree on the thing to look at! (Although it could be
> distinction of stochastic measure as opposed to non-stochastic

> decay constants.

that you will perhaps prefer another outcome, but in science that

does not matter..)

--

Jos

Jan 31, 2021, 10:42:46 AM1/31/21

to

On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 6:29:59 AM UTC-6, Jay R. Yablon wrote:

> My question is simple: Does anybody know if anybody has ever looked for

> some sort of cutoff at the UV end of the blackbody spectrum, and if so,

> what did they find?

>

> [Moderator's note: That is a good question. A brief web search turned

> up nothing. :-( -P.H.]

The real issue here is motivation. Doing an experiment has cost, in
> My question is simple: Does anybody know if anybody has ever looked for

> some sort of cutoff at the UV end of the blackbody spectrum, and if so,

> what did they find?

>

> [Moderator's note: That is a good question. A brief web search turned

> up nothing. :-( -P.H.]

time and money. A professional scientist must try to maximize his/her

impact while minimizing cost and time. If you don't generate results

that people are interested in you don't make tenure and you don't get

the research grants.

So there has to be some reason to expect an interesting result. That

means either a totally unexpected result or one that confirms or

disproves a theory that many people are interested in. You can spend an

entire career testing limit cases in well established theories and never

get an interesting result. That would be a formula for a short and

pointless career. Unless you are very lucky.

What people do is use current theories and problems/questions to guide

their research. This makes perfect sense. You don't look for gold in

Antarctic glaciers, you look in the same sorts of rock formations that

others have found gold.

Of course there is nothing stopping you from looking where ever you like

for an interesting result. You might be lucky, and then be famous. But

don't expect generous funding for your experiments.

Rich L.

Feb 2, 2021, 5:07:37 AM2/2/21

to

for there is no such thing as a 'black body' in the lab.

A black body is an idealisation.

So any observed deviations are going to be ascribed

to the laboratory 'black body' not being ideal,

rather than to errors in the theoretical black body formula,

Jan

Feb 4, 2021, 4:33:55 AM2/4/21

to

header presumably meant results that "have not been disputed"

(bringing to mind one of the prestigious prizes in physics..

<https://archive.vn/DTv1N#History> )

> for there is no such thing as a 'black body' in the lab.

But all our laws of physics are probably idealizations, and the

concepts they use likewise. So then nothing about them would be

a useful question since ideal things do not exist in the lab.

Your reasoning is too restrictive.

> So any observed deviations are going to be ascribed

> to the laboratory 'black body' not being ideal,

Improvements of experimental techniques are often obtained by

trying to measure the (almost) impossible. But there may also

remain some real result after measurements have been improved.

> rather than to errors in the theoretical black body formula,

at least might have deviations at the Planck-energy, but why

not earlier? Maybe at twice the electron mass, where a pair

creation channel opens? Or there may be a cusp or peak at the

axion mass?! (In a sense, the latter is what ADMX is looking

for, although they probably don't care about the CBM shape..)

Anyhow, I'd think something unexpected certainly is possible.

--

Jos

Feb 5, 2021, 9:30:13 PM2/5/21

to

In article <1p3xbnf.1slwrdw1lwxd92N%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,

That is another way of formulating the question. The theoretical curve

is understood. If there is any deviation for a physical black body,

then those deviations must be understood (and presumably usually or

always are). But at a frequency a few times higher than the peak

frequency, I doubt that ANY physical black body has been observed. IF

any deviation is seen, then one cannot just do some hand waving and say

that it is due to an imperfect black body; the deviation has to be

explained quantitatively. And if there is any deviation which is the

same for many different substances, then Occam's razor would suggest

that the theory is wrong, rather than several imperfect black bodies

showing the same deviation.

I don't have any reason to believe in such a deviation, but that is

different from knowing that it has been confirmed.

is understood. If there is any deviation for a physical black body,

then those deviations must be understood (and presumably usually or

always are). But at a frequency a few times higher than the peak

frequency, I doubt that ANY physical black body has been observed. IF

any deviation is seen, then one cannot just do some hand waving and say

that it is due to an imperfect black body; the deviation has to be

explained quantitatively. And if there is any deviation which is the

same for many different substances, then Occam's razor would suggest

that the theory is wrong, rather than several imperfect black bodies

showing the same deviation.

I don't have any reason to believe in such a deviation, but that is

different from knowing that it has been confirmed.

Feb 5, 2021, 9:30:43 PM2/5/21

to

On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 10:42:46 AM UTC-5, richali...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 6:29:59 AM UTC-6, Jay R. Yablon wrote:

>

> On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 6:29:59 AM UTC-6, Jay R. Yablon wrote:

>

> > My question is simple: Does anybody know if anybody has ever looked for

> > some sort of cutoff at the UV end of the blackbody spectrum, and if so,

> > what did they find?

> >

> > [Moderator's note: That is a good question. A brief web search turned

> > up nothing. :-( -P.H.]

> > some sort of cutoff at the UV end of the blackbody spectrum, and if so,

> > what did they find?

> >

> > [Moderator's note: That is a good question. A brief web search turned

> > up nothing. :-( -P.H.]

> The real issue here is motivation. Doing an experiment has cost, in

> time and money. A professional scientist must try to maximize his/her

> impact while minimizing cost and time. If you don't generate results

> that people are interested in you don't make tenure and you don't get

> the research grants.

>

> So there has to be some reason to expect an interesting result. That

> means either a totally unexpected result or one that confirms or

> disproves a theory that many people are interested in. You can spend an

> entire career testing limit cases in well established theories and never

> get an interesting result. That would be a formula for a short and

> pointless career. Unless you are very lucky.

>

> What people do is use current theories and problems/questions to guide

> their research. This makes perfect sense. You don't look for gold in

> Antarctic glaciers, you look in the same sorts of rock formations that

> others have found gold.

>

> Of course there is nothing stopping you from looking where ever you like

> for an interesting result. You might be lucky, and then be famous. But

> don't expect generous funding for your experiments.

>

> Rich L.

Try the Optics Group at the National Institute of Standards and
> time and money. A professional scientist must try to maximize his/her

> impact while minimizing cost and time. If you don't generate results

> that people are interested in you don't make tenure and you don't get

> the research grants.

>

> So there has to be some reason to expect an interesting result. That

> means either a totally unexpected result or one that confirms or

> disproves a theory that many people are interested in. You can spend an

> entire career testing limit cases in well established theories and never

> get an interesting result. That would be a formula for a short and

> pointless career. Unless you are very lucky.

>

> What people do is use current theories and problems/questions to guide

> their research. This makes perfect sense. You don't look for gold in

> Antarctic glaciers, you look in the same sorts of rock formations that

> others have found gold.

>

> Of course there is nothing stopping you from looking where ever you like

> for an interesting result. You might be lucky, and then be famous. But

> don't expect generous funding for your experiments.

>

> Rich L.

Technology (NIST). Have them review your experiment and

have them positively recommend applying for a research grant.

They do allow retrial of old experiments.

Basically think big. For example: Design a compound radiation

detector. A single photon crystal detector with an implanted

temperature sensor. Here your sensor is a Black Body also.

Feb 10, 2021, 1:32:01 PM2/10/21

to

Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> > And here is the meaning of all transformations

> > being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always

> > probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.

> Neither. It is *always* an analytical function! The wavefunction

> gradually changes from one which only has a high amplitude in one

> region to one with the high amplitude in the other region (at the

> other side of the barrier). There is nothing probabilistic about

> that, not even in the most hard-core Copenhagen picture.

What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter
> > And here is the meaning of all transformations

> > being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always

> > probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.

> Neither. It is *always* an analytical function! The wavefunction

> gradually changes from one which only has a high amplitude in one

> region to one with the high amplitude in the other region (at the

> other side of the barrier). There is nothing probabilistic about

> that, not even in the most hard-core Copenhagen picture.

of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,

for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between

"coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other

tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical, and

driven by quantum noise (see e.g. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4813

or doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.43.6194).

Now it might be that you are horrified that such processes

could be called "quantum tunneling", but to people working

in the area, it was unremarkable. Not all terminology is

always used in the same way.

#Paul

Feb 10, 2021, 3:23:08 PM2/10/21

to

On 21/02/10 7:31 PM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

> Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>>> And here is the meaning of all transformations

>>> being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always

>>> probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.

>

>> Neither. It is *always* an analytical function! The wavefunction

>> gradually changes from one which only has a high amplitude in one

>> region to one with the high amplitude in the other region (at the

>> other side of the barrier). There is nothing probabilistic about

>> that, not even in the most hard-core Copenhagen picture.

>

> What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter

> of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,

> for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between

> "coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other

> tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,

I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!
> Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>>> And here is the meaning of all transformations

>>> being the outcome of QM tunneling. Is tunneling always

>>> probalistic or is it sometimes an analytic function.

>

>> Neither. It is *always* an analytical function! The wavefunction

>> gradually changes from one which only has a high amplitude in one

>> region to one with the high amplitude in the other region (at the

>> other side of the barrier). There is nothing probabilistic about

>> that, not even in the most hard-core Copenhagen picture.

>

> What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter

> of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,

> for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between

> "coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other

> tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,

> and

> driven by quantum noise (see e.g. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4813

> or doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.43.6194).

you just mean all the degrees of freedom of the surroundings

then it is still deterministic quantum mechanical time evolution,

so that is not what I would call statistical. Likewise, if it is

determined by very fine details of the initial state then it is

again not statistical, at least not in the "playing with dice"

sense. Those things are merely intractable (and of course in

that sense can be called statistical).

So did you have proof that there exist cases where tunneling

(or anything that happens to a quantum state) can *not* be

explained by the initial state and the coupling to surroundings?

> Now it might be that you are horrified that such processes

> could be called "quantum tunneling", but to people working

> in the area, it was unremarkable. Not all terminology is

> always used in the same way.

It's the old question whether QM is deterministic or not! And

if you can give proof that it isn't, I won't be too horrified,

just very surprised. Actually, the deterministic aspect is of

course horrifying in its own way.. :-)

>

> #Paul

--

Jos

Feb 11, 2021, 5:58:36 AM2/11/21

to

suggest one motivation:

Planck's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law) applies to a

perfect blackbody which does not occur in nature, but is only an

idealization for what occurs in the natural world. Physical observations

of blackbody radiation are at best, close approximations. So, let's work

with those close approximations.

What Hawking discovered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation)

based on Bekenstein

(http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy) is

that perfect black holes emit the same Planck radiation spectrum as

perfect blackbodies. But if you listen to Susskind's lecture

(https://www.cornell.edu/video/leonard-susskind-2-black-holes-conservation-of-information-holographic-principle)

at about 32 minutes (or refer to another source which makes similar

points), it is clear that photons above a certain cutoff energy, near a

black hole, will be captured by the black hole and unable to escape to

be seen by a distant observer, while others below that energy will

bounce off and will be able to escape.

If you want to find this energy boundary, you can use a particle in a

box (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box) approach, whereby

a photon particle with a wavelength smaller than the Schwarzschild

diameter of the black hole box will become trapped, while a photon with

a larger wavelength will escape and so can be observed from afar. If you

do the calculation for a black hole, you will find that this boundary

occurs at slightly longer than 1/8 of the Wien peak wavelength. So, for

black holes, there is an ultraviolet (UV) cutoff in the Planck spectrum,

which we can ascribe physically to the black hole gravitational field

holding back the highest energy photons. In fact, Susskind as referenced

above uses this approach to derive the temperature of Hawking radiation

from Bekenstein's black hole relation.

The question then arises whether the same cutoff exists for an *ordinary

blackbody*, which is *not* a black hole (so far as we know based on

present theory). There are two possible answers: yes or no.

If no, then perfect black holes and perfect blackbodies emit the same

spectrum above ~1/8 of the Wien peak wavelength, but do NOT emit the

same spectrum at shorter wavelengths. Rather, blackbodies still have a

spectrum over this domain, while black holes do not. Black holes revert

over this high-UV domain to being truly black. This now breaks the

spectral identity between blackbodies and black holes at very short

wavelengths / high (UV) energies.

If yes, then the spectral identity between black holes and ordinary

blackbodies remains intact over the entire spectrum domain. But, if yes,

then we have to explain how the statistical thermodynamics underlying an

ordinary blackbody spectrum can give rise to such a UV cutoff without

the *apparent* involvement of black holes to trap photons with

wavelengths shorter than the black hole Schwarzschild diameter.

Jos Bergervoet makes the very astute observation that eventually we *do*

expect deviations. The black-body curve at least might have deviations

at the Planck-energy, but why not earlier? Let's flip this a bit: We
know that the fluctuations at the Planck energy are so dense (Wheeler

1957, 1962), that the Planck vacuum will be filled with a sea of

ultra-tiny black holes. Accordingly, these will emit Hawking blackbody

radiation and there *will* be a UV cutoff because the entire vacuum

across the whole sea of fluctuations acts as one omnipresent

photon-trapping box. The question is whether we can ever observe this

from where we sit in the natural order.

To this question, when we observe an ordinary blackbody, what we are

really doing is emptying out a cavity as best we can, then heating that

empty space using the experimental tool of a physical housing

surrounding the cavity, and observing the spectrum coming out of a hole

in the wall of the housing. So, we are really observing the Planck vacuum

by probing it with thermal energy, but at temperatures many orders of

magnitude removed relative to what would be the intrinsic temperature of

that vacuum. This remoteness of our observation simply damps the spectral

curve of the vacuum down to lower temperatures, because of redshifting

and screening effects.

So, if we were to observe this cutoff in an ordinary blackbody, there

would appear to be *no other explanation* for this but that we are

observing the Planck vacuum from a relativistically very remote frame of

reference. And, for all we do not know about quantum gravity, what we

*do* know is that the Planck vacuum is a place where quantum gravity

*does* come into play. So, by observing such a cutoff, we would for the

first time be observing a phenomenon directly rooted in and attributable

to quantum gravity.

Motivation: check.

Next, over to Douglas Eagleson's suggestion to try the NIST optical

group, which I suspect would not be averse to bagging the first

experimental observation of a quantum gravitational effect.

PS:I will also note without elaboration unless someone asks for it, that

one can combine the Bekenstein bound

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound) with the Wien

displacement law

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law) to

deductively arrive at the above black hole-based cutoff near 1/8 of the

Wien peak. This is a second motivation which independently supports the

first motivation detailed above.

Feb 19, 2021, 3:45:39 AM2/19/21

to

Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> > What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter

> > of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,

> > for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between

> > "coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other

> > tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,

> I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!

I presume you are not actually asking me to prove my experience
> > What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter

> > of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,

> > for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between

> > "coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other

> > tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,

> I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!

as a grad student actually existed. :-)

Any other relevant proof - such as it is - could have been fairly

easily found by following the doi's (and references therein) in my

post. So, in answer, what I might claim to be "pretty sure" of is

not an opinion, but actually derivations you can go check. Feel

free to raise any queries (or disagreements with) here and I'll

try to answer them.

#Paul

Feb 20, 2021, 4:21:56 PM2/20/21

to

On 21/02/19 9:45 AM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

> Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>>> What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter

>>> of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,

>>> for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between

>>> "coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other

>>> tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,

>

>> I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!

>

> I presume you are not actually asking me to prove my experience

> as a grad student actually existed. :-)

No, the only thing that would help is to explain what your sentence
> Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>>> What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter

>>> of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,

>>> for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between

>>> "coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other

>>> tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,

>

>> I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!

>

> I presume you are not actually asking me to prove my experience

> as a grad student actually existed. :-)

meant with 'statistical'.

>

> Any other relevant proof - such as it is - could have been fairly

> easily found by following the doi's (and references therein) in my

> post. So, in answer, what I might claim to be "pretty sure" of is

> not an opinion, but actually derivations you can go check.

or stochastic, then this should have been common knowledge by now (I

think that who can give a proof either way, will be the most famous

physicist of the century!) It is just not clear if that is what your

sentence intended to say.

> Feel

> free to raise any queries (or disagreements with) here and I'll

> try to answer them.

are other people much more qualified than me to challenge you (and I'm

sure they will). If on the other hand, you merely mean it is intractable

due to many dependencies on initial- and boundary conditions, then it

was just not addressing the point in my post you responded to, where I

wrote that the QM description of a tunneling process is deterministic.

So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me

on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.

>

> #Paul

--

Jos

Feb 21, 2021, 3:01:36 PM2/21/21

to

Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me

> on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.

We are at cross purposes; I was reporting a usage of the terminology
> So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me

> on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.

"quantum tunneling" with an explicitly statistical meaning. I was not

making a claim about the fundamental properties of quantum mechanics.

If you want to dispute the sense of the usage I reported, and (eg)

claim that it is not statistical, then I have provided perfectly

adequate references that specify the model; and using which you can

pick apart the mathematics amd physics if you so desire. But the usage

exists, whether you like it or not, and whether you personally think

it suitable or not.

#Paul

Feb 25, 2021, 3:20:32 AM2/25/21

to

On Saturday, February 20, 2021 at 3:21:56 PM UTC-6, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> On 21/02/19 9:45 AM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

> > Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> >>> What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter

> >>> of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,

> >>> for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between

> >>> "coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other

> >>> tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,

> >

> >> I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!

> >

> > I presume you are not actually asking me to prove my experience

> > as a grad student actually existed. :-)

> No, the only thing that would help is to explain what your sentence

> meant with 'statistical'.

> >

> > Any other relevant proof - such as it is - could have been fairly

> > easily found by following the doi's (and references therein) in my

> > post. So, in answer, what I might claim to be "pretty sure" of is

> > not an opinion, but actually derivations you can go check.

> If your claim is to have settled the dispute whether QM is deterministic=
> On 21/02/19 9:45 AM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

> > Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> >>> What sorts of things are called "tunneling" is often a matter

> >>> of usage; and my experience differs. Whilst doing my PhD,

> >>> for example, I had cause to make a clear distinction between

> >>> "coherent tunneling" of the kind you describe, and other

> >>> tunneling between two states, which *was* statistical,

> >

> >> I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that!

> >

> > I presume you are not actually asking me to prove my experience

> > as a grad student actually existed. :-)

> No, the only thing that would help is to explain what your sentence

> meant with 'statistical'.

> >

> > Any other relevant proof - such as it is - could have been fairly

> > easily found by following the doi's (and references therein) in my

> > post. So, in answer, what I might claim to be "pretty sure" of is

> > not an opinion, but actually derivations you can go check.

> or stochastic, then this should have been common knowledge by now (I

> think that who can give a proof either way, will be the most famous

> physicist of the century!) It is just not clear if that is what your

> sentence intended to say.

> > Feel

> > free to raise any queries (or disagreements with) here and I'll

> > try to answer them.

> If you really claim to have the answer to the dispute mentioned, there

> are other people much more qualified than me to challenge you (and I'm

> due to many dependencies on initial- and boundary conditions, then it

> was just not addressing the point in my post you responded to, where I

> wrote that the QM description of a tunneling process is deterministic.

>

> So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me

> on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.

>

> >

> > #Paul
> on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.

>

> >

>

> --

> Jos

This last post contains is a common misconception, and is almost a

straw-man kind of argument. The rules of quantum mechanics actually

allow you to calculate the probability distributions from which the

results of measurements are taken. These are completely precise to

our ability to measure. Just because the results are probabilistic

(not statistical) does not mean they cannot be made precisely. What

is determined is a distribution rather than a number. Here is the

misconception, the prediction does not allow any more precise

calculation that the distribution--it does not allow you to know

the actual number being measured.

In addition, recently, Gerard t'Hooft has suggested the beginnings

of theory that poses that quantum mechanics can be founded upon a

deterministic basis drawn from cellular automata theory. While this

is by no means settled, the fact that it is not automatically insane

makes it worth a bit of study. I do not find the t'Hooft arguments

compelling, but I cannot disprove the results out of hand.

George

Feb 27, 2021, 6:11:46 AM2/27/21

to

On 21/02/25 9:20 AM, George Hrabovsky wrote:

> On Saturday, February 20, 2021 at 3:21:56 PM UTC-6, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

>> On 21/02/19 9:45 AM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

>>> Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

...
> On Saturday, February 20, 2021 at 3:21:56 PM UTC-6, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

>> On 21/02/19 9:45 AM, p.ki...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

>>> Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>> ... If on the other hand, you merely mean it is intractable

>> due to many dependencies on initial- and boundary conditions, then it

>> was just not addressing the point in my post you responded to, where I

>> wrote that the QM description of a tunneling process is deterministic.

>>

>> So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me

>> on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.

>

>> was just not addressing the point in my post you responded to, where I

>> wrote that the QM description of a tunneling process is deterministic.

>>

>> So you first need to clarify whether you actually disagree with me

>> on that (by clarifying 'statistical') before I can raise any queries.

>

> This last post contains is a common misconception,

Which one is that? I'm merely asking a question: whether 'statistical'
was meant as intractable due to many dependencies or as an inherent

stochastic mechanism in the laws of nature..

> ... and is almost a

> straw-man kind of argument.

You mean that my requirement for proof (of either of the two options

mentioned above) is inappropriate?

> The rules of quantum mechanics actually

> allow you to calculate the probability distributions from which the

> results of measurements are taken. These are completely precise to

> our ability to measure. Just because the results are probabilistic

> (not statistical)

intractable due to many dependencies? Or proving that there is an

inherent stochastic mechanism in the laws of nature? That remains

just as unanswered as it was..

> ... does not mean they cannot be made precisely. What

> is determined is a distribution rather than a number.

A distribution of complex amplitudes. In Maxwell theory the E-field
was also a distribution (of real numbers as a function of space). So

nothing essentially new here, those amplitudes may be all that exists..

> ... Here is the

> misconception, the prediction does not allow any more precise

> calculation that the distribution--it does not allow you to know

> the actual number being measured.

> ...
> calculation that the distribution--it does not allow you to know

> the actual number being measured.

Why do you believe there is an 'actual number'? If the distribution

of complex amplitudes is the full description of nature, then we do

not need that. And 'being measured' does not help, we can describe

everything by the complex amplitude distribution of QM: experimental

equipment, the experimenter, his friends, the books he writes..

There will never be a moment when your "actual number" would be

needed. Also the phrase "probability distribution" for the amplitudes

is then misleading, since there never is any mechanism in the laws of

physics that uses those amplitudes to generate things with certain

probabilities.

It seems that you do not want to accept this description of physics,

but then the burden of proof is on you! Note that I do not claim that

it is true, I only point out that it is possible. If you want to deny

that, you have to give proof, and until now all experiments have failed

to do that.

The initial attitude of a century ago, that there may be a wave function

describing the electron in hydrogen but there still should be a "true"

position as well, and that the theory was just "incomplete" by not yet

describing that additional part, and that for macroscopic systems it

would become "obvious" that wave functions are not the full description,

simply has not been proven. On the contrary: experiments with bigger and

bigger molecules are still consistent with the other view, that the

wave function is the full description (which of course is then a big,

entangled wave function of many degrees of freedom.. So where's your

proof that this cannot be the full description of physics?)

--

Jos

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu