Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle

Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle
This is a general method for measuring the precision and disturbance of any system. The system is weakly measured before the measurement apparatus and then strongly measured afterwords. Credit: Lee Rozema, University of Toronto

Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, formulated by the theoretical physicist in 1927, is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics. In its most familiar form, it says that it is impossible to measure anything without disturbing it. For instance, any attempt to measure a particle's position must randomly change its speed.

The principle has bedeviled for nearly a century, until recently, when researchers at the University of Toronto demonstrated the ability to directly measure the disturbance and confirm that Heisenberg was too pessimistic.

"We designed an apparatus to measure a property – the – of a single photon. We then needed to measure how much that apparatus disturbed that photon," says Lee Rozema, a Ph.D. candidate in Professor Aephraim Steinberg's quantum optics research group at U of T, and lead author of a study published this week in .

"To do this, we would need to measure the photon before the apparatus but that measurement would also disturb the photon," Rozema says.

University of Toronto scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle
University of Toronto quantum optics graduate students Dylan Mahler (l) and Lee Rozema (r) prepare pairs of entangled photons to study the disturbance the photons experience after they are measured. The pair are part of a team that demonstrated the degree of precision that can be achieved with weak-measurement techniques, causing a re-evaulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Credit: Dylan Mahler, University of Toronto

In order to overcome this hurdle, Rozema and his colleagues employed a technique known as weak measurement wherein the action of a measuring device is weak enough to have an imperceptible impact on what is being measured. Before each photon was sent to the measurement apparatus, the researchers measured it weakly and then measured it again afterwards, comparing the results. They found that the disturbance induced by the measurement is less than Heisenberg's precision-disturbance relation would require.

"Each shot only gave us a tiny bit of information about the disturbance, but by repeating the experiment many times we were able to get a very good idea about how much the photon was disturbed," says Rozema.

The findings build on recent challenges to Heisenberg's principle by scientists the world over. Nagoya University physicist Masanao Ozawa suggested in 2003 that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not apply to measurement, but could only suggest an indirect way to confirm his predictions. A validation of the sort he proposed was carried out last year by Yuji Hasegawa's group at the Vienna University of Technology. In 2010, Griffith University scientists Austin Lund and Howard Wiseman showed that weak measurements could be used to characterize the process of measuring a quantum system. However, there were still hurdles to clear as their idea effectively required a small quantum computer, which is difficult to build.

"In the past, we have worked experimentally both on implementing weak measurements, and using a technique called 'cluster state quantum computing' to simplify building quantum computers. The combination of these two ideas led to the realization that there was a way to implement Lund and Wiseman's ideas in the lab," says Rozema.

It is often assumed that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to both the intrinsic uncertainty that a quantum system must possess, as well as to measurements. These results show that this is not the case and demonstrate the degree of precision that can be achieved with weak-measurement techniques.

"The results force us to adjust our view of exactly what limits places on measurement," says Rozema. "These limits are important to fundamental quantum mechanics and also central in developing 'quantum cryptography' technology, which relies on the to guarantee that any eavesdropper would be detected due to the disturbance caused by her measurements."

"The quantum world is still full of uncertainty, but at least our attempts to look at it don't have to add as much uncertainty as we used to think!"


Explore further

Are you certain, Mr. Heisenberg? New measurements deepen understanding of quantum uncertainty

More information: The findings are reported in the paper "Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements". prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i10/e100404
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle (2012, September 7) retrieved 25 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-09-scientists-renowned-uncertainty-principle.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 07, 2012
Before each photon was sent to the measurement apparatus, the researchers measured it weakly and then measured it again afterwards, comparing the results. They found that the disturbance induced by the measurement is less than Heisenberg's precision-disturbance relation would require.

They just said its imperceptible… so how did they perceive it? do they know what these words mean? They are wrong… all they did was shrink the uncertainty down till it seems to go away… but if you scale the view, and get down there, and could sit on the particle, you would find that within the size of the perturbations, its unpredictable… ie. when you use more energy, the size of the zone of perturbation is larger and so more unpredictable. When you use less energy, the zone of perturbation is smaller and so you can see the general in it more easily. But in BOTH cases. Given a point target to strike… both would miss the target equal times, but be clustered near it inversely to the power…

Sep 07, 2012
If the HUP is true than scale is continuous, if scale is discrete then the HUP is false. If you can subdivide units of time and distance to infinity then nothing ever exists anywhere... otherwise, if there exists the smallest possible units of these quantities (such as the plank time/distance) then things exist in a particular place at a particular time.

HTK
Sep 07, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 07, 2012
@artflDgr

I understood what was stated maybe you got confused.

HUP = Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

1) weak measurement -- should not change the photon
2) normal measurement -- HUP says this will greatly change the photon
3) weak measurement -- should not change the photon

delta(3,1)= change created by 2 small change from 3

if the results from 1 and 3 are almost identical then 2 did not do much change. That was the experiment. If each tradiditonal measurement is changing the particle then a measurement before and after that do not change the particle should be able to measure the change that the traditional measurement makes on the photon.

that is pretty straight forward.

Sep 07, 2012
if there exists the smallest possible units of these quantities (such as the plank time/distance) then things exist in a particular place at a particular time.


Non-sequitur.

They could be existing in multiple particular places at the same time with some probability, or not completely in any one particular place.

Sep 07, 2012
It will certainly be nice to be certain about however much uncertainty we will certainly find in certain quantum systems!

Sep 07, 2012
It will certainly be nice to be certain about however much uncertainty we will certainly find in certain quantum systems!

I see what you did there.

Sep 07, 2012
You certainly did! ;)

Sep 07, 2012
YES! I was sure of this for the longest time. Now I can rest assured knowing I was right!

Sep 07, 2012
Or you could just make the uncertainty principle pretty much irrelevant.
Quantum Entanglement of Very High Angular Momenta

"Furthermore, the OAM degree of freedom can
be used to increase the difference in the quantum number between entangled photon pairs (19),
such that before any measurement took place both photons can carry different, arbitrarily high
values of OAM. As soon as the OAM value of one photon is measured, the amount of OAM
carried by the other photon is instantaneously well-defined no matter how big the difference of
the two possible angular momenta is."

Sep 07, 2012
In essence, the single photon is transverse wave, so it cannot be used for transfer of information with superluminal speed. But the entanglement of two or more photons from multiple directions allows the propagation of portion of information in form of longitudinal waves and as such with speed, which exceeds the speed of light. This information is not fully deterministic, but with repetition of transfer by principle of so-called weak measurement its determinism may be restored. In essence, the fully deterministic transfer of the same amount of information in this way would take the same time, like the transfer of the same information with single photon, so that neither special relativity, neither uncertainty principle is broken in this case.
This comment was downvoted here, whereas it represents exactly the point of this new article.

Sep 07, 2012
The confusion between uncertainty principles and the observer effect was a historical artifact, it is long gone. Even Heisenberg later proved a correct, though simple, HUP. There are many uncertainty principles besides the one tested in the paper (Robertson's, the most general one). [ http://en.wikiped...rinciple ]

One such test was described recently here. [ http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv ]

In fact, weak measurements in and of themselves would be a failed test for the observer effect. But it is nice that they test every situation.

"if the results from 1 and 3 are almost identical then 2 did not do much change." The reason for the particular experiments involved were a lot more complicated. In principle they could have gotten away with two measurements, #1 measuring weakly the property #2 measured strongly. (Fig 1 in the paper.)

Sep 07, 2012
india007, so called squeezed quantum state allow for knowing some properties of a system thoroughly, as do weak measurements. As you say, there are ways to make the HUP irrelevant in some cases.

@ ValeriaT:

Fractal failure comment.

- This article says precisely nothing on light speed limits.

- The phase velocity says precisely nothing on light speed limits.

- Group velocities and wave forms combine to say something, and it is known beyond reasonable doubt that signals obey relativity (causality allows at most vacuum speed of light information transfer).

This is well known, it is conceptually simple, and it has been well tested for a century without fail despite very, very, yes in fact very, many tests. Open a physics book and check out for yourself.

Oh, and I need to let my browser access the voting scripts. Thanks for the tip!

Sep 07, 2012
it is conceptually simple, and it has been well tested for a century without fail despite very, very, yes in fact very, many tests
Nope, just the principle of weak measurement enabled to reconstruct the quantum wave function of photon, which changes superluminaly. Inside of photon which is moving with the speed of light by itself no separate change should be observed.

Sep 07, 2012
if there exists the smallest possible units of these quantities (such as the plank time/distance) then things exist in a particular place at a particular time.


Non-sequitur.

They could be existing in multiple particular places at the same time with some probability, or not completely in any one particular place.


This is an expression of our inability to probe at these scales... that's all. Existing in multiple places at the same time violates the definition of a "thing"... it would be multiple things with the same properties. Physical location is a property of a "thing"... The difference between one "thing" existing in multiple locations and multiple identical "things" each existing in their own location is purely semantics.

Sep 07, 2012
clearly "I" only exist in one place... but if somehow there were two identical copies of me and the only difference between them was their location in space then that is still TWO copies of me, not one of me existing in two places at the same time.

Obviously we are talking about the most fundamental constituents of reality here and not complex things like me, but the principle is the same. Physical location is a defining property of a thing, to say that something exists in two places simultaneously is the same as saying that two identical things exist in different places.

Try not to get confused between human-invented concepts used to refer to reality and ACTUAL reality.

Sep 07, 2012
If an object can exist in two places at once, how do you measure its speed. Do you subtract the average of it origins from the average of its destinations? Once you measure its origins, will it only have one destination? If it can exist in two places at once, maybe it is only entangled with itself.

Sep 07, 2012
Surely HUP doesn't say we can't measure anything precisely, just that we can't measure both of a pair of conjugate parameters with infinite precision: position and momentum, or energy and time. What is being measured here is polarisation - what is the conjugate parameter? Is there one?

Sep 07, 2012
As much as I want to believe this article, a second weak measurement may only return a small percentage of the effect of the first weak measurement. A prior weak measurement and the intermediate measurement needs to be followed by a strong measurement. If they can't correlate between the two, the weak measurement is meaningless and does not void HUP. Just because the measurement changes the more the measurement is made, does not indicate an accurate measurement.

Dug
Sep 07, 2012
Isn't casting doubt on uncertainty like casting a shadow in the dark?

Sep 07, 2012
Surely HUP doesn't say we can't measure anything precisely, just that we can't measure both of a pair of conjugate parameters with infinite precision: position and momentum, or energy and time. What is being measured here is polarisation - what is the conjugate parameter? Is there one?


OHH! You got them! They tried to sneak one past us, but you didn't let them. Good for you. /sarcasm

google it yourself.

Sep 07, 2012
This is an expression of our inability to probe at these scales... that's all. Existing in multiple places at the same time violates the definition of a "thing"... it would be multiple things with the same properties. Physical location is a property of a "thing"... The difference between one "thing" existing in multiple locations and multiple identical "things" each existing in their own location is purely semantics.


What is location? Perhaps we have been misunderstanding what the word means. If we limit the definition of "location" to discrete cubicles of space, then we're telling nature how to be, rather than observing and describing it. Perhaps under certain conditions location has no more meaning than time does to a photon.

Sep 07, 2012
Philosophic photons indeed...!

Now, if I rode on a photon, how long would I be in transit according to the passage of time as far as the photon perceives it, ends up as approaching infinity or rather T over 0 - which too me, isnt infinity - rather I interpret that to mean "time does not apply to the perception of time from a photon's perspective"
Sorry to hijack this discussion, this has been bothering me for a while until a dream put some things in context last month hmmm...

Sep 07, 2012
Location is the position of the center of mass of object. The speed of its movement is limited with special relativity. The quantum mechanics managed a trick though, which enables to evade this limit for entangled pair of distant objects.

Sep 08, 2012
If an object can exist in two places at once, how do you measure its speed. Do you subtract the average of it origins from the average of its destinations? Once you measure its origins, will it only have one destination? If it can exist in two places at once, maybe it is only entangled with itself.


An object cannot exist in two places at once because it violates the definition of an object... an object has a location, ONE location... If you tell me that an object exists in two places simultaneously I will tell you that you are wrong, that there are actually two objects, and they are identical EXCEPT for their location in space... the different locations of the two objects, if identical in every other way, is itself enough to make them TWO objects.

An "object" is an abstract and concept... it means what we dictate that it means, and right now, due to our perception of reality, existing in a single location is a defined property of EVERY object.

Sep 08, 2012
Mike:

The question is meaningless, photons cannot perceive anything. Perception is an emergent phenomenon of neural activity, which operates at FAR less than light speed. I know it's a hypothetical question, I know that you know that photons cannot perceive anything, but I think it's important to realize that some questions are simply nonsense. You might as well ask how happy a photon is... it simply doesn't apply, "happiness" and "perception" are properties that photons do not possess.

The passage of time is a perception, the perception of change of the physical state of reality. If nothing perceives it, the presence or absence of it is meaningless.

Furthermore, as far as we know photons are merely energy and energy is eternal... what meaning would time possibly have to something that is eternal? Photons ARE time... in that energy IS time, in that energy is responsible for change.

Sep 08, 2012
Can someone please explain how it is possible to measure the polarisation of a single photon?

I understand that it is possible to send a beam of light through a polarizing lens and those photons that make it through are considered to be "polarised." But viewing the property of polarisation as something inherently contained within the photon, how is it possible to test for this?

I have a suspicion about what the answer may be. I think polarisation may relate to "spin" (otherwise called "angular momentum") and there may be magnetic resonance involved? But I would be interested to hear from anyone that knows this in empirical terms or someone who can give me an insight into the accepted theory.

Help much appreciated.

Sep 08, 2012
The Heisenberg principle is based upon a single measurement not multiples and statistical improvements (N^-0.5) of knowledge of mean position x momentum vectors. We can now photograph atom electron clouds with massive electron microscope electron flux and yet this valuable new image does not change the single measurement Heisenburg principle. The massive statistical result is a different animal needing a different name, like Lee's photo, IMHO.

Sep 08, 2012
When you make a measurement, you need an apparatus; and this means the introduction of boundary conditions (BC's). A change in BC's can change what you want to measure into something else. This is NOT just true for quantum mechanics. For example, it is impossible to verify experimentally that there is an electric field-energy around a solitary charge, since you need to use a second charge to measure this field if it exists. All you can conclude is that when there are two charges there is a force between them. To conclude that there is an electric field-energy is an assumption without any experimental proof. There is, most probably, not an electric-field energy which has to be renormalised to disappear as is done in QED.

HUP is not, anymore, about not being able to measure without changing the result. It has become a postulate that "uncertainty" is inbuilt into Nature whether you measure or do not measure: The latter is claptrap, since it violates Galileo's concept of inertia.

Sep 08, 2012


HUP is not, anymore, about not being able to measure without changing the result. It has become a postulate that "uncertainty" is inbuilt into Nature whether you measure or do not measure:


I was under the impression that was always the case, that the measurement aspect of the principal was merely a some what 'classical' analogy to explain to classically minded physicists of the time ,.... while fundamentally it expresses that conjugate variables are Fourier transforms of each other, which still holds of course.

Sep 08, 2012
In other words, historically, I though Heisenberg invented the (measurement aspect) analogy for "classical explanation purposes", not as a fundamental principal. He thought it quit meaningless to make statements about a qm entity between measurements.

Sep 08, 2012
Did Heisenberg implicitly assume (as Leibniz and Newton did) that euclidean geometry is valid on infinitesimal length scales? Then this assumption would be inherent to Quantum mechanics.

Sep 08, 2012
An object cannot exist in two places at once..an object has a location, ONE location..
It doesn't apply to quantum mechanics, in which one electron is at many places around atoms, these places are called the orbitals. I admit, it's simplification of the physical situation - as the probability of the particle occurrence doesn't say, where the particle actually is - but such questions have no meaning in rigorous quantum mechanics. As you can see from this scheme, nothing can even actually move in quantum mechanics: just the probability of occurrence of particle at some place is decreasing and it increases congruently somewhere else. If you perceive it like motion, it's solely your perspective - the rigorous quantum mechanics doesn't recognize the concept of motion at all: everything observable in it happens immanently with superluminal speed. It's important to understand, the spirit of QM is dual to spirit of GR and it defies it deeply.

Sep 08, 2012
...that the measurement aspect of the principal was... 'classical' analogy to explain to classically minded physicists of the time
Wrong
.fundamentally it expresses that conjugate variables are Fourier transforms of each other, which still holds of course.
Of course!

This is where Heisenberg misled physicists: Mind you he was clever like a fox: He even misled Einstein!!

There is NO uncertainty in momentum and position of an electron when solving the Schroedinger wave-equation. The electron-wave, like ALL harmonic waves has a size (delta)x in position space and a size (delta)k in reciprocal space. This has NOTHING to do wih the centre-of-mass of such a wave: For example, any stationary Schroedinger-wave of an electron has distributed mass-energy and therefore a centre-of-mass which has a DEFINITE position (say x=0) and a definite momentum whuch MUST be p=0: This is mandatory for Newton's first law (Galileo's inertia), which must be valid, even within the QM domain

Sep 08, 2012
Whole the physics of the new century is about discussions, whether the general relativity doesn't somehow allow the superluminal phenomena which would violate its determinism and vice-versa: whether the quantum mechanics doesn't allow some subluminal phenomena, which would violate its probabilistic character. For me this question is solved already: the perspective strictly local in space and time doesn't allow it - but because we human observers aren't local and we have a memory, the observable violations of both theories are allowable easily.

The another question is, both these theories are formulated being as local (causual) as possible - so that the conservative purists will always adhere on their strictly local formulations, which would enable to work with them (and to generate articles, jobs and money) most reliably and comfortably. All these extensions of relativity and quantum mechanics are dirty mixes, which violate the original postulates of these theories on background.

Sep 08, 2012
Whole the physics of the new century ....... which violate the original postulates of these theories on background.
Waht a lot of mumbo-jumbo.

Sep 08, 2012
If the people wouldn't have any memory and if they couldn't operate in space-time, then the principle of so-called weak measurement wouldn't have any meaning for QM, because we wouldn't be able to correlate consecutive observations into context of single experiment. But because we human creatures are capable to do so, we can artificially reconstruct the inner working of quantum mechanical objects (quantum wave function) in sequence of stroboscopic/tomographic observations. Such a results connected into single interpretation would indeed violate both quantum mechanics both special relativity in their strictly local and atemporal formulation. These theories weren't simply constructed for being handled so.

Sep 08, 2012
In other words, historically, I though Heisenberg invented the (measurement aspect) analogy for "classical explanation purposes", not as a fundamental principal. He thought it quit meaningless to make statements about a qm entity between measurements.

I know he did and therefore he and Bohr led physics back into a New Age of superstition. WE are not supposed to know how Nature does it! If we "look" at what the "particles" are doing, they do not want to diffract anymore: What a load of claptrap!

Sep 08, 2012
Waht a lot of mumbo-jumbo. What a load of claptrap!
You're occupying single (i.e. yours) rigid observational perceptive of quantum mechanics, so you cannot see the things/theories/interpretations in their particular context. But from certain perspective the Copenhagen interpretation is as relevant, as the pilot wave or any other of dozens interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's like the recognition of garden with using of snapshots: each photo will be quite different from others, yet they all illustrate the same garden. What you're doing is you're standing aside while waving with your own photograph in hands and screaming: "Go fuck yourself all of you - your gardens is not what my photo is illustrating!" This is how I do perceive your posts here.

Sep 08, 2012
It's like the recognition of garden with using of snapshots: each photo will be quite different from others, yet they all illustrate the same garden. What you're doing is you're standing aside while waving with your own photograph in hands and screaming: "Go fuck yourself all of you - your gardens is not what my photo is illustrating!" This is how I do perceive your posts here.
I believe in freedom of speech and thought and respect your perception of me! Maybe it is more than a perception!

One cannot reconcile the Copenhagen-interpretation with realism and causality, so I doubt whether you have any sapshots of a real garden that you are able to wave around. Thus, maybe my snapshot is the only correct one??

Sep 08, 2012
The relevance of various interpretations of quantum mechanics can be demonstrated with iconic double slit experiment with photons of different energy. The diffraction pattern of long-wavelength photons appears like the diffraction of pure waves with no dots. The diffraction pattern of energetic photons appears similarly, but it's composed of many dots. The pilot wave interpretation of QM is saying: the particle is point object, the wake wave of vacuum around it is what gives its wave character. The Copenhagen interpretation says instead: whole the particle is wave packet and its wave function is what participates to diffraction. But as we can see, the relevance of both models depends on the relative energy of particle involved: for low energies the wave functions of particle and vacuum converge mutually. We therefore cannot say without deeper analysis, which interpretation is more relevant to particular situation: the contemporary quantum mechanics has no tools how to distinguish it.

Sep 08, 2012
The diffraction pattern of long-wavelength photons appears like the diffraction of pure waves with no dots. The diffraction pattern of energetic photons appears similarly, but it's composed of many dots.
Nope!! With longer wavelengths the "dots" are just larger. What Planck really discovered was not "light-particles" BUT only that an absorber of coherent-light cannot emit or absorb less light-energy than that of a quantum.

Furthermore, as we know from radio-waves, an EM wave can only be absorbed when it resonates with an absorber (antenna). The lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength, and the larger the dimensions of the absorber must be. The observation screen consists of a distribution of absorbers for each frequency. Since the absorbers for light with long wavelengths cause larger "dots" they merge sooner, giving the perception that these photons do not cause "dots".

It is really very simple you know; unless you prefer to believe in Voodoo instead of reality.

Sep 08, 2012
The pilot wave interpretation of QM is saying: the particle is point object, the wake wave of vacuum around it is what gives its wave character.
Why do you rquire a "pilot wave"? The energy of a light wave consists of ditributed dynamic-mass: Distributed mass has a centre-of-mass. Thus you only require a wave: Not a particle AND a pilot wave.

The Copenhagen interpretation says instead: whole the particle is wave packet and its wave function is what participates to diffraction.
A wave packet is NOT a coherent wave and will therefore give a washed-out diffraction pattern. This is not observed for single photons: Therefore Copenhagen is claptrap.

But as we can see, the relevance of both models depends on the relative energy of particle involved: for low energies the wave functions of particle and vacuum converge mutually.
BS!! They are both nonsense!

Sep 08, 2012
Valeria, I accidentally gave you a 1 when I meant to give you a 5... not that I put much meaning on the ratings here, but I didn't want you to get the wrong idea if you happened to notice it. For whatever reason in my browser (chrome) I cannot even see the stars at the bottom right of the posts anymore, I just blindly click to the far left or right now!

Sep 08, 2012
Nope!! With longer wavelengths the "dots" are just larger.
They're softer and more fuzzy too and more difficult to recognize from background. After all, it's very easy to imagine, when the wavelength of photons expands into wavelength of CMBR photons, then these photons will become indistinguishable from its noisy background and the light will propagate like pure relativistic wave without any particle character.
A wave packet is NOT a coherent wave and will therefore give a washed-out diffraction pattern. This is not observed for single photons: Therefore Copenhagen is claptrap
I explained you already, the wake wave around photon is, what is diffracted during double slit experiment. And this wake wave is essentially coherent and monochromatic. Which is the reason, why the deBroglie pilot wave theory has its place in physics.

@Deathclock: I'm not following the voting here as well because of its abusing with various individuals.

Sep 08, 2012
Wow this comment section sure degenerated into a nebulous state.

Sep 08, 2012
Heisenberg's principle ONLY applies to the measurement of momentum OR the measurement of position. Measuring one increases the uncertainty in the other. It says nothing about measuring OTHER PROPERTIES.

This is a non-conflict conflict.

Sep 08, 2012
I explained you already, the wake wave around photon is, what is diffracted during double slit experiment. And this wake wave is essentially coherent and monochromatic. Which is the reason, why the deBroglie pilot wave theory has its place in physics.
Will you please stop sniffing herion and get back to reality: THERE IS NO "WAKE-WAVE": ONLY WITHIN A DEMENTED MIND!!


Sep 08, 2012
Heisenberg's principle ONLY applies to the measurement of momentum OR the measurement of position. Measuring one increases the uncertainty in the other. It says nothing about measuring OTHER PROPERTIES.
What about energy and time?

When you make a measurement which changes the boundary conditions a wave will morph to adapt to the new boundary conditions, but this does not mean that there is an uncertainty in the position or the momentum of a wave. There NEVER has been NOR ever will be such uncertainties.

Sep 08, 2012
Deathclock got wound up in tangent
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !!

Try telling the perception to gps satellites too etc...

When I meant perception surely its best to see that as 'passage of time, from the perspective of the particle' and this is a real issue !

Take a radioactive nucleon if its travelling relativistically with respect to a stationary reference frame it *does* last longer before the classic decay, this is not mere perception it is demonstrable as a fact. SR does apply !

There are experiments where photons are slowed right down at very low temperatures and in relation to bose-einstein condensates so the equations of SR must be applied, photons have also disappeared ! variants of SR equations therefore must apply !

Dont oversimplify my query, see it in context and lift your intellect/game ?

Sep 08, 2012
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !!
Voodoo. Unless one twin experienced more gravity than the other their ages will be exactly the same when they meet up.

classic decay, this is not mere perception it is demonstrable as a fact. SR does apply !
It is so relative to a clock on earth but not a clock travelling with the decaying entity. But this is another topic!

There are experiments where photons are slowed right down at very low temperatures and in relation to bose-einstein condensates so the equations of SR must be applied,
The eqs. of SR do apply. When stopping a light-wave the time within the body of the wave stops and its energy becomes rest-mass.
photons have also disappeared !
They do not "disappear" they only stop to add to the mass-energy of the absorber

Sep 08, 2012
johanfprins showed his extreme ignorance of maths and special relativity with
Voodoo. Unless one twin experienced more gravity than the other their ages will be exactly the same when they meet up.
WRONG !
The SR equations re twins dont require gravity its v^2 related, ie Velocity not gravitational field, look up SR and do the maths yourself - they wont be the same age at all - no arbitrary claims, dont be a dunderhead - check it and get an education Please before commenting again so as not to waste time !

Photons dont have a 'rest mass' (as such), observations of photon 'decay' or loss under those bose-einstein conditions dont increase the mass of the system - the photons do seem to disappear...

The relationship between electrons, relativistic effects, photons and the photoelectric effect appears much more complex than initially described. Understand why Einstein got the Nobel, there might be another opportunity in that field for another Nobel...


Sep 08, 2012
Understand why Einstein got the Nobel

Actually he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, not SR or GR, but agree with the rest.

Sep 08, 2012
sstritt possibly got habituated to other people who dont know whay Einstein got a Nobel and assumed it applied to me
Understand why Einstein got the Nobel
Actually he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, not SR or GR, but agree with the rest.
Thats what I said :-)
..photoelectric effect appears much more complex than initially described. Understand why Einstein got the Nobel..
Should the dot have been a comma ?, regardless the context is appropriate and yes most people dont know precisely why Einstein got the Nobel.

btw. I did expand by suggesting the photoelectric effect has a great deal more to be understood, the relationship between the e- creating a photon, time, the photon being absorbed and moving an e- or ejecting it etc There seems to me to be more room for another Nobel in that field...

Sep 08, 2012
Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, formulated by the theoretical physicist in 1927, is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics. In its most familiar form,


Okay, but it is interesting to note that nowadays physicists still not know its physical meaning, may be this (below) could help us to understand it.
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en

Sep 08, 2012
the photoelectric effect has a great deal more to be understood, the relationship between the e- creating a photon, time, the photon being absorbed and moving an e- or ejecting it etc There seems to me to be more room for another Nobel in that field...
Of course there is alot more to be understood..

Pinning down the real fundaments (principles) behind the whole process (eg. understanding what planck units really mean) would finally allow us to move beyond quantum mechanics, which I think is a feat worth many Nobels, not just one.

Though there's a pletora of mental/formal straitjackets currently standing in its way, so it might be a bit rough of a journey before it gets finally recognized/accepted.

But, most importantly, we are getting there.. just slowly :-)

rah
Sep 08, 2012
"Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle"
No, they didn't.

Sep 08, 2012
I see, they just accidentally called their article a "Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements" - but they don't doubt this relationship otherwise¡

Sep 08, 2012
Deathclock got wound up in tangent
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !!

Try telling the perception to gps satellites too etc...


Wow you really didn't understand what I said... Two people can of course perceive time differently per time dilation of GR, no shit... you completely missed the point I was making.

nevermind... not worth my time.

Sep 09, 2012
WRONG !
The SR equations re twins dont require gravity its v^2 related, ie Velocity not gravitational field, look up SR and do the maths yourself - they wont be the same age at all - no arbitrary claims, dont be a dunderhead - check it and get an education Please before commenting again so as not to waste time !
I know SR far better than you will ever be able to understand it; and I have done the mathematics better than anybody before me has done it. The fact is that according to twin1's clock the clock ot twin2 is running slower, while according to twin2's clock the clock of twin1 is running slower: However twin1's clock is STATIONARY relative to twin1 AND twin2's clock is STATIONARY relative two twin2: AND ACCORDING TO SR STAIIONARY CLOCKS KEEP THE SAME TIME!! Maybe it is too much for your bonehead to grasp such simple logic?


Sep 09, 2012
Photons dont have a 'rest mass' (as such)
When they move with the speed of light, you are correct: But even so their total energy is, according to E=m*c^2, mass-energy
observations of photon 'decay' or loss under those bose-einstein conditions dont increase the mass of the system
Who would be so stupid to claim this? It will violate energy-conservation. But, when photons merge to form a single stationary-wave within say a laser cavity, the energy of this wave is rest-mass energy
the photons do seem to disappear...
So you really are such a bonehead that you believe that energy can disappear? Wow!!


Sep 09, 2012
The relationship ..... initially described. ..there might be another opportunity in that field for another Nobel...
Einstein's model of a "collision" between two "particles" is wrong. Firstly, there are no "free-electrons" within any material since this will require that the electron must have a mass-energy larger than its rest-mass.

What is generated within a metal are pseudo-electrons, each having a mass energy LESS than the rest-mass energy of a free electron. An incoming photon-WAVE resonates with the pseudo e-WAVE, stops in its tracks and converts its dynamic mass-energy partly or totally into rest-mass energy which increases the mass-energy of the pseudo-electron: If this increase in mass-energy is larger than the rest-mass of a free electron, the pseudo-electron ejects from the metal to be a really free-electron.

The energy does not disappear when a ph is absorbed by an electron-wave: It is gobbled-up by the e-wave which then morphs into a higher energy e-wave.

Sep 09, 2012
...according to twin1's clock the clock ot twin2 is running slower, while according to twin2's clock the clock of twin1 is running slower: However twin1's clock is STATIONARY relative to twin1 AND twin2's clock is STATIONARY relative two twin2: AND ACCORDING TO SR STAIIONARY CLOCKS KEEP THE SAME TIME!! Maybe it is too much for your bonehead to grasp such simple logic?


The two clocks are only stationary relative to their own reference frame, not to each other. Perhaps you misspoke. The situation for the two twins is not symmetrical,... as the traveling one must enter two reference frames to arrive back at earth.

Sep 09, 2012
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !! Try telling the perception to gps satellites too etc... When I meant perception surely its best to see that as 'passage of time, from the perspective of the particle' and this is a real issue !


I think 'Deathclock's-tangent' (cool name for a band btw) was saying is that Time is a conceptual artifact, not a physical entity in itself. There is no observable time-particle or time-field. You say "time passes" which is vague physically. Fundamentally, time is the comparison between the number of cycles of one standard physical system congruent with the number of cycles of other systems. Thats it. It's a difference in physical circumstance that causes this relative difference, and which we conceptualize as "time".

Sep 09, 2012
..that the measurement aspect of the principal was... 'classical' analogy to explain to classically minded physicists of the time -Noumenon
Wrong.-johanfprins


Are you sure. I'm saying the "measurement aspect" of HUP, that is, as Heisenberg explained it in intuitive terms, i.e. can't measure without disturbing the system.

...fundamentally it expresses that conjugate variables are Fourier transforms of each other, which still holds of course.- Noumenon
Of course!-johanfprins
In other words, what is being defeated above (if valid) is merely his intuitive analogy, not his physical relation dxdp>h.


Sep 09, 2012
There is NO uncertainty in momentum and position of an electron when solving the Schroedinger wave-equation. The electron-wave, like ALL harmonic waves has a size (delta)x in position space and a size (delta)k in reciprocal space. This has NOTHING to do wih the centre-of-mass of such a wave: For example, any stationary Schroedinger-wave of an electron has distributed mass-energy and therefore a centre-of-mass which has a DEFINITE position (say x=0) and a definite momentum whuch MUST be p=0: - johanfprins


Wrong. #obnoxious buzzer sound#

Your mistake is in interpretation of the wave-function as having a center of mass. The wavefunction is NOT a physical entity.

This state-vector as represented in Hilbert space, is NOT observable unless it is congruent with a basis vector. That is to say, it must collapse or project onto a basis vector representation,... which are the possible observables.

The wave-function expresses probabilities, not center-mass physical entities.

Sep 09, 2012
The two clocks are only stationary relative to their own reference frame, not to each other.
Exactly!! Einstein's very first postulate states that the laws of physics are the same within ANY inertial reference frame? So if each twin has an atomic clock with him/her these clocks MUST keep time at the same rate or else the laws of physics will NOT be the same within their respective inertial reference frames. So how can one age faster than the other?
Perhaps you misspoke.
I did not misspoke
situation for the two twins is not symmetrical,... as the traveling one must enter two reference frames to arrive back at earth.
It does not matter in which direction you move relative to one another, the atomic clocks with the twins MUST keep the same time unless Einstein's first postulate is wrong! Are you totally unable to follow simple logic?

Why are we arguing about SR: This thread is about HUP; which you also obviously do not understand.

Sep 09, 2012
Fundamentally, time is the comparison between the number of cycles of one standard physical system congruent with the number of cycles of other systems.
Bravo! I never thought that YOU would be able to understand this
It's a difference in physical circumstance that causes this relative difference,
Such a difference does not exist for different inertial reference-frames; or else physics will not be the same within these reference frames; as have been postulatede by Galileo, Newton AND Einstein.

Sep 09, 2012
In other words, what is being defeated above (if valid) is merely his intuitive analogy, not his physical relation dxdp>h.
For a Schroedinger-wave, say an orbital around a nucleus, the relationship is dxdk>1. Such a wave is a stationary wave and has NO momentum whatsoever. An electron moving through free space has momentum but it is a coherent wave with a single frequency; and in this case dxdp>h does also not apply.



Sep 09, 2012
The two clocks are only stationary relative to their own reference frame, not to each other.
Exactly!! Einstein's very first postulate states that the laws of physics are the same within ANY inertial reference frame? So if each twin has an atomic clock with him/her these clocks MUST keep time at the same rate or else the laws of physics will NOT be the same within their respective inertial reference frames. So how can one age faster than the other?

Yes in each frame the laws of physics don't change, but the representation does. The entire point of Einstein was to state "Lorenzt invariance", not time invariance. The components of a physical representation vary wrt velocity, but not the physics being represented,.. for example the four-momentum vector does not change, but the components used in a particular coordinate system do change,.. one of which is time, i.e. in time dilation, length contraction.

It's even worse in GR, where there are NO synchronized clocks.

Sep 09, 2012
Your mistake is in interpretation of the wave-function as having a center of mass.
The wave-function is the amplitude of a wave: The energy of a wave is the square of this amplitude: This gives the energy-intensity of the wave: Since all energy can be written as E=mc^2 , both a light-wave and an electron-wave has distributed mass. When you have distributed mass, you have a centre-of-mass.
The wavefunction is NOT a physical entity.
Oh yes it is: For a light-wave moving through free space it is the electric-potential of the electric-field: Similarly an electron moving through free space also has a wave amplitude that is the potential of the electric-field of the wave; except that the electron-wave moves with a speed v which is slower than light speed: And therefore it has rest-mass.

The wave-function expresses probabilities, not center-mass physical entities.
You like to believe in Voodoo physics!! Einstein correctly stated: God does not play dice!

Sep 09, 2012
.... but the representation does.
"Representation" my ass!
The entire point of Einstein was to state "Lorenzt invariance",
The concept of "invariance" has been misapplied. I blame Minkowski!
The components of a physical representation vary wrt velocity, but not the physics being represented,..
Arguing mathematics instead of physics-reality.
for example the four-momentum vector does not change,
The Lorentz transformation transforms the physics that is occurring within one coordinate system, as it will APPEAR TO BE OCCURRING when viewed from another coordinate system.

If you synchronise all the clocks along a railway-line and a train passes by, an observer within the train will observe these clocks along the platform to be out of synchronisation WHILE THEY ARE NOT. An observer on the platform will find that the nose and tail are simultaneously further apart than the actual length of the train! No contraction but an elongation!!

Sep 09, 2012
.... but the representation does.
"Representation" my ass!
By representation I mean coordinate representation, the components (i.e. t,x,y,z) can change while the physics being represnetated remain constant.

The entire point of Einstein was to state "Lorenzt invariance"
The concept of "invariance" has been misapplied. I blame Minkowski!
How so? You correctly pointed out above that Einstein stated that physics should remain the same irrespective of reference frame,... That's what Lorentz invariance IS.

It's called "Lorentz" invariance because of the signature (-, , , ) of the spacetime. The Lorentz transformation is another concept.


Sep 09, 2012
The Lorentz transformation transforms the physics that is occurring within one coordinate system, as it will APPEAR TO BE OCCURRING when viewed from another coordinate system.


Correct, the physics observed "appear", and thus ARE, effected by relative velocity of different frames of reference. Apart from the philosophical issue of time tangent, Mike mentioned several good examples about of measurable effects that SR correctly predicts. That is what a theory does,.. it predicts observations.

What is your objection?

Sep 09, 2012
situation for the two twins is not symmetrical,... as the traveling one must enter two reference frames to arrive back at earth.
It does not matter in which direction you move relative to one another, the atomic clocks with the twins MUST keep the same time unless Einstein's first postulate is wrong! Are you totally unable to follow simple logic?


Are you totally unable to follow SR? The Twin thought experiment is not a paradox, because the situation is not symmetrical wrt reference frames, the moving one changing frames.

Einsteins postulate IS correct, yes,, AND time dilation occurs. The two atomic clocks will run at different rates if they move at different velocities, which IS the physics. Einstein was a physicist. Btw, wrt appearances, the speed of light is already taken account of in SR, so it's not merely about an appearance due to a finite light speed, if that was your meaning above.

Sep 09, 2012
In other words, historically, I though Heisenberg invented the (measurement aspect) analogy for "classical explanation purposes", not as a fundamental principal. He thought it quit meaningless to make statements about a qm entity between measurements.

I know he did and therefore he and Bohr led physics back into a New Age of superstition. WE are not supposed to know how Nature does it! If we "look" at what the "particles" are doing, they do not want to diffract anymore: What a load of claptrap!


Actually, their point was to remove metaphysics and conceptual assumptions from physics. That 'god does not play dice' is an intuitive assumption. That the wavefunction is a physical entity is an intuitive assumption. It is you who wish to keep superstition, while physics progresses from observations only, not from "what goes on in between". In fact in QM, the exact "realism" mechanism of electron absorption and emission is entirely unknown.

Sep 09, 2012
By representation ... the components (i.e. t,x,y,z) can change while the physics being represnetated remain constant.
I also suffered for years from a frontal lobotomy owing to this seemingly correct, but misleading argument: It creates the perception that you have a time coordinate which changes with position within an inertial reference frame (IRF); so that synchronised clocks at different positions will show different times within the same IRF.

In my example above, I pointed out that an observer on the train will see the sync clocks along the railway showing different times while these clocks do no such thing. Similarly if there are sync clocks within the train along the whole length of the train, they will also not show different times. Thus, within both IRF's time does not change with position. Neither does any clock in one IRF keep time at a different rate than an identical clock within the other IRF.

Sync clocks will not go out of sync when a train is passing by.

Sep 09, 2012
How so? You correctly pointed out above that Einstein stated that physics should remain the same irrespective of reference frame,... That's what Lorentz invariance IS.
Lorentz invariance is nonsensical since this "coordinate transformation", if one can call it that, is based on the assumption that time is an actual coordinate which is different at different positions within an IRF. IT IS NOT THE CASE! The interpretation of the Lorentz transformation is more subtle than this.

It's called "Lorentz" invariance because of the signature (-, , , ) of the spacetime.
It would only have been correct if time-rate could actually have been different at different positions within an IRF. This is not the case! Minkowski caused this misperception.

Sep 09, 2012
Correct, the physics observed "appear", and thus ARE, effected by relative velocity of different frames of reference.
I do not disagree with this
Mike mentioned several good examples about of measurable effects that SR correctly predicts.
Again I do not disagree: Muon decay in the atmosphere measures a longer lifetime on your clock on earth: However this DOES NOT mean that a clock travelling with the muon and the clock on earth are keeping time at different rates. Only from earth it seems as if the clock with the muon is going slower while it is not going slower at all.

This is what relativity is all about: When a ball is launched vertically within a passing IRF you will observe it to follow parabolic path while it is not doing so within the IRF within which it has been launched. If you want it to follow a vertical path in your IRF, you will have to ensure that it is launched at an angle. For the same reason you have to adjust the clock-rate on a GPS.

Sep 09, 2012
Are you totally unable to follow SR?
YOU are the one who wants to believe in Voodoo!
The Twin thought experiment is not a paradox,
I have not said it is a paradox since it is not based on real logic. It is a stupid illogical argument which should have been seen as such, since the clock with one twin keeps time at the same rate as the clock with the other twin when the IRF's move relative to one another.

Einsteins postulate IS correct, yes,, AND time dilation occurs.
It is incorrectly understood: Two simultaneous events at different positions within a passing IRF will be observed at different times within your IRF, but this does not mean that the clocks at the positions within your IRF, where you observe the two events, are simultaneously showing different times. They are keeping the exact same time: If they did not, you would not have been able to conclude that the two events are not simultaneous within your IRF.

Sep 09, 2012
By representation ... the components (i.e. t,x,y,z) can change while the physics being represnetated remain constant.
I also suffered for years from a frontal lobotomy owing to this seemingly correct, but misleading argument: It creates the perception that you have a time coordinate which changes with position within an inertial reference frame (IRF); so that synchronised clocks at different positions will show different times within the same IRF. In my example above, I pointed out that an observer on the train will see the sync clocks along the railway showing different times while these clocks do no such thing.


It is implicit in SR that relative simultaneity fails. That is to say the person on the train will disagree with the person on the platform over what is simultaneous.

Sep 09, 2012
Actually, their point was to remove metaphysics
Nope, just the opposite: Bohr stated: "Albert wil you stop telling God what He can or cannot do!" This is unadulterated superstition.
and conceptual assumptions from physics.
What is wrong with conceptual assumptions? This is how physics prospered for over 400 years!
That 'god does not play dice' is an intuitive assumption.
It proves that Einstein had more sense in his intuition than in Bohr's head .
That the wavefunction is a physical entity is an intuitive assumption.
Nope! All waves ever discovered before have been real waves which can, for example, diffract. It was found that electron-waves can actually diffract: It is only a fool who would then argue that an electron-wave is not a real wave.

There is NO experimental proof that the wave-intensity of an electron is a probability distribution. All experiments quoted in support of this ridiculous assumption can be explained in terms of wave-behaviour

Sep 09, 2012
@johanfprins
To clarify, in respect of the twin problem/paradox, that when the twins are reconciled after travel will:-

i. Be the same age ?
ii. Have different age but *only* due to GR (GTD) ?
iii. Have different age due to GR (GTD) and to a lesser effect of SR (Velocity TD) than conventionally accepted ?

In light of your thoughts above on the three points,
Would you care to comment specifically on corrections applied to GPS satellites being in line with predictions of GR *and* SR ?

Finally, as it seems many experiments for decades confirm GR and SR effects re time dilation, are you aware of and can you reference any definitive experiments which confirm your objection/theory re SR TD and by what degree etc ?

Sep 09, 2012
It is implicit in SR that relative simultaneity fails. That is to say the person on the train will disagree with the person on the platform over what is simultaneous.
Where did I disagree with this? Are you all there? Can you read? Even BETTER: Try to use any grey matter which might be (?) between your ears!

I am first taking a break: But will be back!

Sep 09, 2012
Sync clocks will not go out of sync when a train is passing by.


To know that you have to be in the IRF with all the sync'd clocks, so therefore in accord with SR, your spacial coordinates define simultaneity. The passenger on the train will disagree though, as there is no absolute space-time.

Consider a modified version; Two space ships in different IRF fly at different velocities passed two exploding bombs. Ship A says they both exploded at the same time, while ship B says they didn't. Who is correct?

The question itself is entirely frame dependant.

Sep 09, 2012
@johanfprins
To clarify, in respect of the twin problem/paradox, that when the twins are reconciled after travel will:-

i. Be the same age ?
ii. Have different age but *only* due to GR (GTD) ?
iii. Have different age due to GR (GTD) and to a lesser effect of SR (Velocity TD) than conventionally accepted ?


If there is an age difference it will NOT have been caused by SR.

In light of your thoughts above on the three points,
Would you care to comment specifically on corrections applied to GPS satellites being in line with predictions of GR *and* SR ?
Of course these corrections are required for both. In the case of GR, the clock is actually going faster since it is in a lower gravitational field. In the case of SR, the correction is required since it seems from earth as if the clock is running slower while it is not doing so.

If you do not correct for SR and bring the clocks together after say 50 years you will find no time difference that was caused by SR.

Sep 09, 2012
To know that you have to be in the IRF with all the sync'd clocks, so therefore in accord with SR, your spacial coordinates define simultaneity. The passenger on the train will disagree though, as there is no absolute space-time.
Although there is absolute space-time within his/her IRF, he/she does not see the simultaneous events within the other reference frame (within which there is also an absolute space-time or else simultaneity will not be possible) as being simultaneous.

Consider a modified version; Two space ships in different IRF fly at different velocities passed two exploding bombs. Ship A says they both exploded at the same time, while ship B says they didn't. Who is correct?
Obviously, simultaneity only makes sense when the two events occur simultaneously within a single IRF within which space-time is absolute. Since the two simultaneous events did not occur within the IRF's of either spaceship, your question is irrelevant.

Sep 09, 2012
Actually, their point was to remove metaphysics and conceptual assumptions from physics.
Nope, just the opposite: Bohr stated: "Albert wil you stop telling God what He can or cannot do!" This is unadulterated superstition.


Bohr and Heisenberg were anything but superstitious (metaphysicians), they were in fact logical positivists. It was a sarcastic response to Einstein saying "God does not play dice". In other words, Einstein expected reality to accord with his intuitions. To presume an a-priori conceptual structure as consistently operative to all of reality, is metaphysics in pure form.

Such was the quantum revolution and the break with tradional "classical" physics, where intuitive conceptualizations had to be abondoned to make progress.

Sep 09, 2012
Consider a modified version; Two space ships in different IRF fly at different velocities passed two exploding bombs. Ship A says they both exploded at the same time, while ship B says they didn't. Who is correct?
Obviously, simultaneity only makes sense when the two events occur simultaneously within a single IRF within which space-time is absolute. Since the two simultaneous events did not occur within the IRF's of either spaceship, your question is irrelevant.


It's relevance is in showing that you're talking out of your ass. So, in other words my example, the purpose of which was to demonstrate failure of relative simultaneity, ,.. is "irrelevent" because simultaneity doesn't make sense in that example?

Read it again. I said one of the ships OBSERVES the bombs going off simualtaneously. The space ship example is as valid as your train example, and shows that different observers at different velocities will not agree on what are simultaneous events.

Sep 09, 2012
,... I could modify the example and label the two bombs 1 and 2. It could be depending of relative reference frame that Ship A does not agree with Ship B, even over which bomb exploded first, bomb 1 or bomb 2.

Sep 09, 2012
They detect a thing and then detect it again only harder? What's that about and how do you do that? The dual slit experiment, detecting an electron collapses the wave function. They are saying detecting an entangled photon isn't doing that until they want to, and then go on to say any WEAK observation has nothing to do with the stronger detection of its spin, but that the HUP is wrong. They say any detection removes uncertainty, and then to measure it again with less error is unexpected. That's stupid.

Sep 09, 2012
It's relevance is in showing that you're talking out of your ass. ..... because simultaneity doesn't make sense in that example?
As usual you are writing about concepts well beyond what you are able to grasp or being able to define. First define simultaneity so that we can see whether you understand what the hell you are writing about!

Read it again. I said one of the ships OBSERVES the bombs going off simualtaneously.
I did, and I again noted that you give no definition of what simultaneity means. If you are a scientist you are a very sloppy one!

Sep 09, 2012
I already defined it above, from your own example, when I stated ,...

To know that you have to be in the IRF with all the sync'd clocks, so therefore in accord with SR, your spacial coordinates define simultaneity. The passenger on the train will disagree though, as there is no absolute space-time.


In response to you stating,...

Sync clocks will not go out of sync when a train is passing by.

Sep 09, 2012
Bohr and Heisenberg were anything but superstitious (metaphysicians), they were in fact logical positivists.
LOL! Are you serious?
It was a sarcastic response to Einstein saying "God does not play dice".
It does not matter whether it is sarcastic: The intent is clear: We are not here to question the gods but to accept what they are doing: Utter superstitious metaphysics!
In other words, Einstein expected reality to accord with his intuitions.
No he expected that waves should act like they always did.
To presume an a-priori conceptual structure as consistently operative to all of reality, is metaphysics in pure form.
This is not what Einstein did at all. This is the dogmatism currently in vogue, of which you are an enthusiastic supporter.

Such was the quantum revolution and the break with tradional "classical" physics, where intuitive conceptualizations had to be abondoned to make progress.

Sep 09, 2012
I already defined it above, from your own example, when I stated ,...
Stop deliberately lying: I will nudge you a bit ahead: Two events occur at two different positions: Are these positions moving relative to one another when these events are simultaneously occurring?


Sep 09, 2012
Such was the quantum revolution and the break with tradional "classical" physics, where intuitive conceptualizations had to be abondoned to make progress.
I discovered that I did not wipe this stupid remark by you. There is NO BREAK with traditional "classical physics". Ony people who believe in metaphysical Voodoo will argue that this is the case.

Sep 09, 2012
If someone is interested: there is a preprint

Sep 09, 2012
Re GPS, a practical example, johanfprins offered re GR & SR
Of course these corrections are required for both. In the case of GR, the clock is actually going faster since it is in a lower gravitational field. In the case of SR, the correction is required since it seems from earth as if the clock is running slower while it is not doing so.
So when the GPS atomic clocks are interrogated and spit back their 'local' time, how do the admins know precisely how much is real & how much is mere perception when, according to you, SR isn't real ?

johanfprins went on to offer a stark contradiction with
If you do not correct for SR and bring the clocks together after say 50 years you will find no time difference that was caused by SR.
If that were the case why do you think it is necessary to correct for SR as in your statement earlier each & every day ?

So when the admins have corrected for GR & SR as if they are real effects & not perceptions you claim they are totally wrong, how so ?

Sep 09, 2012
So when the GPS atomic clocks are interrogated and spit back their 'local' time, how do the admins know precisely how much is real & how much is mere perception when, according to you, SR isn't real ?
They do not need to know this to adjust the time on the GPS clock.

If you do not correct for SR and bring the clocks together after say 50 years you will find no time difference that was caused by SR.
If that were the case why do you think it is necessary to correct for SR as in your statement earlier each & every day ?
This was clearly explained: If it is not corrected for this relativistic perception from earth, one will not be able to calculate positions on earth correctly!

So when the admins have corrected for GR & SR as if they are real effects & not perceptions you claim they are totally wrong,
I did not claim this at all!! The correction is required when it is real (as for gravity) and when it is a perception (as for SR).

Sep 09, 2012
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !! Try telling the perception to gps satellites too etc... When I meant perception surely its best to see that as 'passage of time, from the perspective of the particle' and this is a real issue !


I think 'Deathclock's-tangent' (cool name for a band btw) was saying is that Time is a conceptual artifact, not a physical entity in itself. There is no observable time-particle or time-field. You say "time passes" which is vague physically. Fundamentally, time is the comparison between the number of cycles of one standard physical system congruent with the number of cycles of other systems. Thats it. It's a difference in physical circumstance that causes this relative difference, and which we conceptualize as "time".


Thank you!

Sep 09, 2012
So when the GPS atomic clocks are interrogated & spit back their 'local' time, how do the admins know precisely how much is real & how much is mere perception when, according to you, SR isn't real ?
They do not need to know this to adjust the time on the GPS clock.
Are you claiming the admins of the GPS system never need to correct for SR at all ?

Which doesn't invalidate my question. The atomic clocks on the GPS when interrogated spit out their 'local' time, presumably after being calibrated just prior to launch. It is reported they run faster by 45,900 ns/day due to the lower gravitational field but also run slower by 7,200 ns/day due their velocity re SR.

So when they spit out a number which is 45,900-7,200 ns diff. per day how can *you* or the admins tell if real and measurable change in rate as being due to what combination of GR or SR since you seem to only suggest SR is a perception, But the numbers are real they are not a mere perception its a measurable quantity?

Sep 09, 2012
Time is a conceptual artifact, not a physical entity in itself.
This is open to debate: Time and kinetic-energy goes hand-in-hand. If time cannot manifest, kinetic-energy cannot manifest. Kinetic-energy is a physical entity which we can experience through temperature. This could mean that time IS "a physical entity in itself". When the entropy is maximum, time is a stationary physical entity: When entropy changes, time has a direction, defining a past and a future.

Sep 09, 2012
I already defined it above, from your own example, when I stated ,...
Stop deliberately lying: I will nudge you a bit ahead: Two events occur at two different positions: Are these positions moving relative to one another when these events are simultaneously occurring?


Do you mean, 'are the two events moving'? It depends on the circumstances of your thought experiment. You tell me.

It is possible that Ship A sees two events as simultaneous even though the two events may be moving relative to each other. Simultanety being of an instant, naturally.

Sep 09, 2012
Are you claiming the admins of the GPS system never need to correct for SR at all ?
If you read what I am writing you will NOT ask such a stupid question. I have clearly stated that they have to adjust for ALL time differences whether these differences are real or perceptions.

So when they spit out a number which is 45,900-7,200 ns diff. per day how can *you* or the admins tell if real and measurable change in rate as being due to what combination of GR or SR since you seem to only suggest SR is a perception,
As I have pointed out, you do not need to know this to adjust the clock on the satellite.

Sep 09, 2012
Do you mean, 'are the two events moving'? It depends on the circumstances of your thought experiment. You tell me.
You are either incredibly stupid or dodging my question.

I am asking YOU to define when two events separated by a distance L in space are simultaneous or not. And I have asked you whether two events at two points can be simultaneous when the two points are moving relative to one another. It is a simple question with a yes or no answer. Einstein used simultaneous events to explain SR: So there MUST be conditions under which two events are actually simultaneos or not simultaneous. If there are not such conditions, two events can NEVER be simultaneous.

It is possible that Ship A sees two events as simultaneous even though the two events may be moving relative to each other. Simultanety being of an instant, naturally.
That is correct but it does not define when two events are actually simultaneous!

Sep 09, 2012
Time is a conceptual artifact, not a physical entity in itself.
This is open to debate: Time and kinetic-energy goes hand-in-hand. If time cannot manifest, kinetic-energy cannot manifest. Kinetic-energy is a physical entity which we can experience through temperature. This could mean that time IS "a physical entity in itself".


To measure a velocity requires a standard of time. But, this standard of time is really just the number of cycles of some reference system, which will be congruent with the event in question. So, what is physically being compared are two events. It's just easier to say one second than "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

When the entropy is maximum, time is a stationary physical entity: When entropy changes, time has a direction, defining a past and a future.

Entropy is an epiphenomenon.

Sep 09, 2012
Entropy is an epiphenomenon.
Classification of a physics reality with a fancy word is utter stupidity. You are starting to bore me!

Sep 09, 2012
I am asking YOU to define when two events separated by a distance L in space are simultaneous or not. And I have asked you whether two events at two points can be simultaneous when the two points are moving relative to one another.


I answered both questions somewhere above, but I'll answer the former one again; When the two events are observed at the same time in a particular reference frame. There is no absolute simultaneity however, it is observer dependent.

Entropy is an epiphenomenon.
Classification of a physics reality with a fancy word is utter stupidity. You are starting to bore me!
Google is your friend and mentor. I mean entropy is not a fundamental physical law, it's just a statistical based result, thus cannot be physical "time" .

Sep 09, 2012
From perspective of particle model of space-time, the relativity is theory, which deals with transverse waves only, but it considers the gradients of environment and time dimension of space-time. Whereas the quantum mechanics is the theory, which considers both transverse, both longitudinal waves, but it doesn't recognize the gravity or time dimension: it's atemporal by its very nature. The special relativity can be violated with introduction of quantum indeterminism with introduction of quantum entanglement of objects across space (essentially the observation of reality with using of longitudinal waves between entangled pairs). And the quantum mechanics can be violated with introduction of time dimension, i.e. knowledge about history (principle of weak measurement). Therefore the knowledge of history allows us to break the limits of quantum uncertainty principle with entanglement in time even under situation, when the classical (atemporal) uncertainty principle doesn't allow it.

Sep 09, 2012
The description of first experiment from last year: http://www.scienc...abstract

I highly recommend the supplemental information if you want to actually follow how many ways these guys semi-collapse the photons polarization state.

Sep 09, 2012
hmmm, @johanfprins can we just for a moment see the GPS atomic clocks as an instrument ?

The admins report the atomic clocks speed up by 45,900ns/day due to GR and slow down by 7,200 ns due to SR.

So when they interrogate the atomic clocks they see a real difference between ground clocks of 45,900-7,200 then, following your issue re perception, how do they know which aspect of that number is real and which is mere perception ?

You stated earlier that if they didnt correct for SR that after 50 years the clocks will be the same (as ground units) if only corrected for GR.

Are you therefore implying SR is to be treated much like doppler shift and it will therefore (mostly) cancel out after 50 years ie sometimes plus & sometimes minus etc ?

The Lorentz factor seems to me to be a scalar, if so, then how can it cancel out after 50 years ?

Sep 10, 2012
Of course, all this becomes moot once we develop Heisenberg compensators as part of our transporters...

Sep 10, 2012
....When the two events are observed at the same time in a particular reference frame. There is no absolute simultaneity however, it is observer dependent.


It has nothing to do with the presence of an observer or not. Let us cut through your BS:

Simultaneity of two events can only occur within a specific IRF. This mens that the two events MUST be stationary relative to one another. It also means that two clocks at the positions of the two events MUST show the SAME time. Since two events can occur simultaneously at any two separated points within the IRF, it mandates that within an IRF clocks at different positions can be synchronised to keep the exact same time: This, in turn, means that time is NOT position-dependent within an IRF: i.e. that an IRF defines an ABSOLUTE space-time: Just like Newton has assumed.

This does not mean that you will observe events within a passing IRF to be the same as observed within the passing IRF: Even Newton new this: Ergo his first law.


Sep 10, 2012
Google is your friend and mentor. I mean entropy is not a fundamental physical law, it's just a statistical based result, thus cannot be physical "time" .


I have not stated that entropy IS physical time: YOu really have a problem with reading and comprehension you know.

What is clear is that when you have maximum entropy, time does npt have a direction (a past and a future). For time to have a direction, irreversable processes must occur and the latter requires a change in entropy. Have you EVER read a book on thermodynamics? I doubt it!

Sep 10, 2012
From perspective of particle model of space-time, the relativity is theory, which deals with transverse waves only, but it considers the gradients of environment and time dimension of space-time. Whereas the quantum mechanics is the theory........ to break the limits of quantum uncertainty principle with entanglement in time even under situation, when the classical (atemporal) uncertainty principle


PLEASE stop drowning us in verbose bollox!!

Sep 10, 2012
The admins report the atomic clocks speed up by 45,900ns/day due to GR

This is probably actually happening WITHIN the satellite
and slow down by 7,200 ns due to SR.

This is as observed from earth: It is a purely relativistic effect and does not actually occur on the clock within the satellite.

Let me try and explain again in terms of relativity without involving time: When an aeroplane passes by and drops a bomb, you will from the earth see the bomb following a parabolic path: Relative to the aeroplane the bomb will drop straight down. If you use this straight-down motion to also be the motion relative to earth, you will miscalculate where the bomb will explode.

Although the parabolic motion relative to earth is REAL, it is NOT REAL relative to the aeroplane.

Similarly although the SR time-dilation relative to earth is experienced as being real it is not really occurring on the clock within the satellite.

Sep 10, 2012
... how do they know which aspect of that number is real and which is mere perception ?
As I have stated above THEY DO NOT HAVE TO KNOW!

You stated earlier that if they didnt correct for SR that after 50 years the clocks will be the same (as ground units) if only corrected for GR.
That is obviously correct, since the SR ajdustments are made to get the correct results on earth. If they are not made, the clock on the satellite (excluding GR) will keep the SAME time as the clock on earth.

Are you therefore implying SR is to be treated much like doppler shift
It is not neccessary to complicate the issue by bringing the d-shift into this.

The Lorentz factor seems to me to be a scalar,. .how can it cancel out after 50 years ?
It only gives you the change in time as observed from earth, which is not the same as what is actually occurring on the satellite: On the sattelite, except for GR, the clock keeps EXACTLY the same time as the clock on earth.

Sep 10, 2012
Isn't the HUP fundamentally a mathematical construct. Applying to many things where conjugate attributes exist.
One basic example is frequency/value as the observed time scale becomes small.

As for position of small particles i though it was settled that until measured a small particle does not have a precise position.


Sep 10, 2012
@johanfprins
I notice you have ignored my idea to use the GPS atomic clock as an instrument. Please dont get fixated on corrections of time, use it as an instrument of the environment it is in, can we converge on the detail of the use as an instrument which has no issue of anthropomorphism or judgement of reality vs perception.

ie. When the GPS is interrogated it spits out a number which must reflect the rate of the clock - whether GR or SR or *any* issue as to why faster or slower, the GPS doesnt care ! The numbers spat out surely are real reflection of its environment however it is impacted by GR or any other factor making it report it is faster or slower, how can you separate confidently that which you claim is real from that which you claim is perception for a scalar number ?

Presumably when the base atomic clock & the GPS atomic clock are both on ground & both stationary with respect to each other than they would show the same rate, those initial conditions are valid surely ?

Sep 10, 2012
Isn't the HUP fundamentally a mathematical construct. Applying to many things where conjugate attributes exist.
These "conjugate attributes" prove that matter and light consist of waves. Only a wave has "conjugate attributes" since it lives in both position and reciprocal space,
One basic example is frequency/value as the observed time scale becomes small.

as well as time and reciprocal time (frequency) space. These attributes have NOTHING to do with a "particle" having "uncertainties" in position and momentum; nor with "uncertainties" in time and frequency. They are proof that light- and matter-energy consist purely as waves.

As for position of small particles i though it was settled that until measured a small particle does not have a precise position.
This is the Voodoo dogma which is at present accepted by the mainstream physicists (read "mainstream" as "mediocre"). But it is of course total nonsense: It leads to a non-real interpretation of physics.

Sep 10, 2012
@johanfprins
When the GPS is interrogated it spits out a number which must reflect the rate of the clock - whether GR or SR or *any* issue as to why faster or slower, the GPS doesnt care ! The numbers spat out surely are real reflection of its environment
They are of the environment on the satellite; however, you are not on the satellite: What you observe on earth is determined by the Lorentz-transformation (LT) FROM the satellite to earth
how can you separate confidently that which you claim is real from that which you claim is perception for a scalar number ?
What you observe on earth is real, no matter whether it is caused by GR or SR. What you observe on the satellite is not changed by SR, since the LT from the sat into the sat itself does NOT change the rate of the clock relative to the sat! Only the LT from the sat. to earth changes the time-rate relative to earth. The SR-time-dilation on earth is not also occurring on the GPS clock on the sat.

Yes
Sep 10, 2012
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle could be bypassed and is not valid, when you become the particle.
In that case, you know where you are and you know your impulse so to say. However you could not communicate the results with others, without changing your own properties.
LOL

Sep 10, 2012
This is the Voodoo dogma which is at present accepted by the mainstream physicists (read "mainstream" as "mediocre"). But it is of course total nonsense... - johanfprins


I noticed at your profile page under other interests your wrote;

"To promote integrity in Physics"

...It leads to a non-real interpretation of physics.


Reality has no use for your notion of "realism". You are promoting metaphysics by imposing your subjective concepts onto reality. The QM revolution was the lesson that physics is about making predictions based only on observations, not to satisfy our intuitive predilections.

Sep 10, 2012
I noticed at your profile page under other interests your wrote;

"To promote integrity in Physics"
Correct: And I have found it to be nearly impossible at present. Well what can one expect if even the Royal Society of London is betraying everything that its founding fathers tried to mandate!

...It leads to a non-real interpretation of physics.


Reality has no use for your notion of "realism". You are promoting metaphysics by imposing your subjective concepts onto reality. I am not doing that at all. You must be talking about Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Dirac etc. This is exactly what they have done and what the mainstream theoretical physicists are still doing at present.
The QM revolution was the lesson that physics is about making predictions based only on observations, not to satisfy our intuitive predilections.
If you think you are doing physics by not trying to find out what causes what you are observing, you are not a physicist but superstitious fool.

Sep 10, 2012
johanfprins just promotes another version of dogma - in this sense he is not any better, than the mainstream physics, which he criticizes here all the time.
As they say it is the inalieniable right of every person to make an utter fool of him/herself. Time will tell whether YOU or I are the fool in this case. Any person, even I can be a fool, but in this case I have very little doubt who the fool is.

If I try to imagine the physics lead with people like Prins, then I'd rather prefer to stay with mainstream physics with all its mistakes and dogmatism.
I hope you do, since it will be extremely embarrassing to have a fool like you on my side!

FS1
Sep 10, 2012
@johanfprins: Why do you feel the need to insult people here? Who gave you that right? Are you unable to present your arguments without calling people names? And you lambast 'mainstream' scientists for letting subjectivity clutter their reasoning? Honestly...

Sep 10, 2012
@johanfprins: Why do you feel the need to insult people here? Who gave you that right? Are you unable to present your arguments without calling people names?
No I am not; but for more than 10 years people on these bloggs insulted me as being a crackpot etc., while they refuse to argue logic. I am not out to insult them but just to point out that they are acting like idiots and fools.
And you lambast 'mainstream' scientists for letting subjectivity clutter their reasoning? Honestly...
Well I have enough proof which will stand up in any court of law that this is the case at present: And now I am talking about people like Wilczek, Jopsephson, 'tHoofd, Berry, Eckern, Saller, Toyama etc. It is in the interest of the future of physics that I should not stay polite anymore. We are wasting billions of dollars looking for non-existing "particles" like the Higgs boson. This is a waste of taxpayers money; and the future of our children!!

Sep 10, 2012
del is spot on HUP still holds. The thing accomplished here is the accuracy is a bit improved but the principle itself remains valid.

Sep 10, 2012
I was under the impression that HUP is really a mathematical concept that is well proven and that can be extended to the physical world directly through conjugate attributes.
One experiment that seems to prove HUP is the stellar interferometer that uses HUP directly to measure stellar diameter

Sep 10, 2012
One experiment that seems to prove HUP is the stellar interferometer that uses HUP directly to measure stellar diameter
Although they called it HUP, it is not HUP but just the Raleigh resolution criterion which applies to any wave. This has NOTHING to do with an uncertainty in position and momentum of a "particle".

"Particles" do not exist, only mass-intensities with centres-of-mass. A centre-of-mass is NOT a "particle": Whatever the latter undefined term means.

Sep 10, 2012
johanfprins offered opinion re SR and the clock on the GPS slowing down by 7,200ns/day
This is as observed from earth...and does not actually occur on the clock within the satellite.
Just to be really clear, when the admins interrogate the GPS clock, they send a signal to the computer and get a report back as to the elapsed time the GPS actually experiences since the last interrogation. The stream of data back is the count of the clock as a series of numbers since last access.

For the sake of brevity and to pin this down please:-
- Neglect effects due to GR
- Neglect comms delay, either up or down.
- Assume GPS computer response time is the same
- Assume ground electronics response time is the same.
- Assume signal path length is the same, Eg. Directly overhead

Are you claiming the data stream back from the GPS will show the same count as the clock on earth since the last time the earth and GPS clocks were interrogated ?

Sep 11, 2012
The stream .. is the count of the clock as a series of numbers since last access
For the sake of brevity and to pin this down please:
- Neglect effects due to GR
- Neglect comms delay, either up or down.
- Assume GPS computer response time is the same
Even if the response time is the same, it is only the same wrt the satellite: It cannot be the same as observed from earth than it is on the satellite: If it is, The Lorentz transformation will be null and void.

Are you claiming the data stream back from the GPS will show the same count as the clock on earth since the last time the earth and GPS clocks were interrogated ?
A measurement made from earth is subject to the LT, and it is thus impossible to measure the same rate, even when the GPS clock keeps the same time-rate as a reference clock on earth. The LT does not allow this to be possible.

Just as it is impossible to measure an up-and-down movement on the satellite as an up-and-down movement wrt to earth.

Sep 11, 2012
"Particles" do not exist, only mass-intensities with centres-of-mass. A centre-of-mass is NOT a "particle": Whatever the latter undefined term means. - johanfprins


Are you saying that the qm wave-function describing a system has a "classically" identifiable center-of-mass-[energy]? Even the pilot-wave interpretation is non-local.

The problem with such (desperate) attempts at maintaining the 'classical' notion of Realism, is that one is lead into metaphysics, precisely because you are making statements about what is not observable. The aether was a like idea, a theoretical crutch to lean on,.. entirely unobservable and redundant.

Physics cannot make progress without observations. 'Center of mass energy' is not observable in itself.

Sep 11, 2012
That the wavefunction is a physical entity is an intuitive assumption. - Noumenon
Nope! All waves ever discovered before have been real waves which can, for example, diffract. It was found that electron-waves can actually diffract: - johanfprins


Only after repeating many diffractions, with many electrons, does it become apparent that the electron interferes with itself. A Single electron is never observed as a wave, ....as a spread of electron-intensity.

This only means that the electron is neither a wave, nor a particle,... that what it is, in-itself, apart from the act of observation, ...is unknowable in principal.

As I explained above the Hilbert-space formulation of qm defines what is Observable; The basis frame onto which the state is projected, is experimentally dependant, which is to say, is supplied given the nature of the experiment.

Your desire of "realism" requires that you speak of metaphysics.

Sep 11, 2012
Are you saying that the qm wave-function describing a system has a "classically" identifiable center-of-mass-[energy]? Even the pilot-wave interpretation is non-local.


For simplicity let us stick to a single-electron-wave. Within its own IRF it MUST have a stationary centre-of-mass (NO uncertainties in position and momentum or else inertia on which ALL physics equations are based must be scrapped). It must thus be an actual stationary wave with distribued mass-energy.

The problem with such (desperate) attempts at maintaining the 'classical' notion of Realism, is that one is lead into metaphysics,
It is not "desperate" and it does not need metaphysics to explain physics like the probability interpretaion requires: eg. Wheeler's delayed choice experiment.

What can be more metaphysical than to postulate that photons or electrons "know" when we are looking at them?

Sep 11, 2012
The aether was a like idea, a theoretical crutch to lean on,.. entirely unobservable and redundant.
It was not a "like idea"! In fact, it is quite funny that the absence of aether is mandatory for an electron to be an electromagnetic wave.

When you derive the relativistic equation for an electron moving through free space correctly (not the Dirac nonsense) you will find that this wave is modelled by Maxwell's equation for the potential of light, but where this light-energy is moving at a speed less than c.

Physics cannot make progress without observations. 'Center of mass energy' is not observable in itself.

It is: Wnen an entity follows a classical path through space, this path is delineated by the centre-of-mass. An electron does follow such a path and must thus have a centre-of-mass. If this were not so, we would not have had electron microscopes. Thus the electron is an electromagnetic wave with a centre-of-mass.

Assuming wave-particle duality is metaphysics!

Sep 11, 2012
Only after repeating many diffractions, with many electrons, does it become apparent that the electron interferes with itself. A Single electron is never observed as a wave, ....as a spread of electron-intensity.


If it could not have moved through both slits and spread out on the other side, one would not have observed a diffraction pattern on a screen after many of them have passed through the slits.

The spread-out wave that reaches the screen must be stopped to be observed: This requires that the electron-wave must morph from being a moving (spread-out) wave to become a stationary wave. It thus ACTUALLY collapses and leaves a spot.

The probability to leave a spot is highest where EACH IDENTICAL, spread-out electron-wave has the highest intensity: Voila, after many electrons formed spots, one can see the diffracted intensity of each identical spread-out electron-wave: No metaphysics required. Why do you like Voodoo?

I am taking a short break!


Sep 11, 2012
What can be more metaphysical than to postulate that photons or electrons "know" when we are looking at them?


That doesn't require a metaphysical explanation at all. In fact the non-intuitive nature of qm is an epistemological issue...;

The notion of Realism in physics is untenable because Reality 'as it is in itself', that is, apart from our conceptualizations of it, can not be known, by definition. All we can do is subject Reality to a conceptual structure supplied by us, in the way we design, perform, and interpret experiments.

This is implicit in von Neumann's Hilbert formulation of qm, since we supply the basis in which the qm-state is decomposed.

Assuming wave-particle duality is metaphysics!


Those are the forms in which that reality is conceptualized,... I stated above that the Reality apart from those forms are NOT of that nature.

Sep 11, 2012
If it could not have moved through both slits and spread out on the other side, one would not have observed a diffraction pattern on a screen after many of them have passed through the slits. The spread-out wave that reaches the screen must be stopped to be observed: This requires that the electron-wave must morph from being a moving (spread-out) wave to become a stationary wave. It thus ACTUALLY collapses and leaves a spot. The probability to leave a spot is highest where EACH IDENTICAL, spread-out electron-wave has the highest intensity:


This is correct, except it is not about "intensity", which is a misapplication of that notion. Intensity implies many electrons, or many photons. We are speaking of one indivisible. Do you mean mass-energy density?

How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real? Theoretically, your "electron wave" could be spread out over large distances. How does the detecting atom suck in this "physical wave".

Sep 11, 2012
This only means that the electron is neither a wave, nor a particle,... that what it is, in-itself, apart from the act of observation, ...is unknowable in principle.
Can you not see that what you are saying here is superstitious metaphysics: "There are unknowable things"; "Albert, stop telling God what He can or cannot do".

As I explained above the Hilbert-space formulation of qm defines what is Observable; The basis frame onto which the state is projected, is experimentally dependant, which is to say, is supplied given the nature of the experiment.
This is mathematical jargon for saying that when you measure, you might change the boundary-conditions and since reality consists of waves, the waves change when their boundary conditions change! Mathematics is a useful language when doing physics BUT IT IS NOT IN ITSELF PHYSICS!! Physics requires visualisation of what is occurring!!


Sep 11, 2012
I do agree, but after then the particles aren't pure waves - they're solitons,
Please read up what a soliton is: It is a non-harmonic wave. The "restoring force" is NON-LINEAR. Electron-waves are harmonic waves all the way.
Your desire of "realism" requires that you speak of metaphysics.
Yes, it's exactly so. This principle has more general scope, as just the most formally thinking physicists depend on metaphysics quite often (you know, all these extradimensions, parallel universes, holographs etc..).
Parallel universes etc.! And I am blamed to practice metaphysics? You must all be demented!!

Sep 11, 2012
How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
The concept of wave function and its collapse is physically real. It's merely an entanglement, i.e. the synchronization of wave function of observer with wave function of observed object. Whenever both waves get entangled, they start to undulate at phase. Which means, from perspective of observer the (wave function of) observed object doesn't undulate anymore. We are saying, the wave function "collapsed" from perspective of observer. It's very trivial and easy to imagine.

The discussion here becomes somewhat confused, because you're opposing the concept of wave function, despite the wave function collapse belongs into concepts of Copenhagen interpretation, which is denied with johanprins obstinatelly.


No, I'm not opposing the concept of "wave function", only a physical interpretation of it. Yes, decoherence occurs, but with the probability interpretation.

Sep 11, 2012
Assuming wave-particle duality is metaphysics!
IMO the idea, that everything is wave is as abstract and reductionists, like the idea, everything is particle particle only.


As usual your opinion is BS! A photon is a real EM coherent wave moving with speed c. A moving electron is also a real EM coherent wave but propagating at a speed v

Sep 11, 2012
It thus ACTUALLY collapses and leaves a spot.
It's way more natural and simpler and I already explained it here many times: The electron is pin point particle, what interferes with double slits is the wake wave of vacuum, which electron does with its motion - not the wave inside of electron.
AG PLEASE stop this absolute nonsense!! You have been spreading it for years using a myriad of names: Using multiple names leaves a great question mark about your integrity!?

Sep 11, 2012
What can be more metaphysical than to postulate that photons or electrons "know" when we are looking at them?


That doesn't require a metaphysical explanation at all. In fact the non-intuitive nature of qm is an epistemological issue...;
Stop your metaphysical pomposity!

The notion of Realism in physics is untenable because Reality 'as it is in itself', that is, apart from our conceptualizations of it, can not be known, by definition.
Whose definition?
All we can do is subject Reality to a conceptual structure supplied by us, in the way we design, perform, and interpret experiments.
I will buy this but why do you then insist to interpret these results in terms of the absurd and impossible? It makes much more sense when you interpret the results in terms of what we have experienced is possible and not absurd. We know that diffraction usually occurs when coherent wavefronts move consecutively through both slits: Why assume that this is not what happens?

Sep 11, 2012
This only means that the electron is neither a wave, nor a particle,... that what it is, in-itself, apart from the act of observation, ...is unknowable in principle.


Can you not see that what you are saying here is superstitious metaphysics: "There are unknowable things"


The exact opposite is being stated by me. I am denying it is meaningful to speak of things that are unobservable in principal.

Our intuitive conceptualizations of reality changes the form of reality to one dependent upon us,.. thus purely logically, conceptualized reality must be different in form from Reality as it is in itself. Mind(R) != R.

This is why qm is non-classical and non-intuitive. This is why Bohr told Einstein " Albert, stop telling God what He can or cannot do". Einstein wish to subject Reality to preconceived notions (determinism),... while Bohr denied the validity of doing so.

The mention of God by both men was purely an allegory.

Sep 11, 2012
This is correct, except it is not about "intensity", which is a misapplication of that notion. Intensity implies many electrons, or many photons.
Why? A photon is a single coherent EM wave which MUST have an intensity proportional to h*(nu).
We are speaking of one indivisible.
Exactly: A coherent wave is just that, whether it is a photon or a laser beam: It IS ONE INDIVISABLE!
Do you mean mass-energy density?
A photon has EM-energy, and this equates to dynamic mass-energy! My God man; we already know this since 1910!!!

How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
When the bounadary conditions change, the wave MUST change shape and size (sometimes also energy) to adapt: This need not just happen by becomong smaller (collapse) but also by becomong larger (inflate). It has NO OTHER CHOICE when its boundary conditions change! Have you never solved a differential wave equation subject to different boundary conditions?

Sep 11, 2012
I asked
Are you claiming the data stream back from the GPS will show the same count as the clock on earth since the last time the earth & GPS clocks were interrogated ?
johanfprins assumed
A measurement made from earth is subject to the LT..
I see you misunderstood, the GPS *reports* its count rate to the ground station as digital data count of its atomic clock, it is *not* measured from the ground per se'

Furthermore, my understanding is that immediately prior to launch each GPS has their clock speed altered to account for GR *&* SR together as real factors which affect the atomic clock on board according to the experience the GPS is exposed to in its environment ie. GR *&* SR.

GPS has been in use for years, without this correction (in the GPS clock rate) for SR it would not show the correct position *&* would be progressively worse especially so after 50 years.

Earlier, I asked re experiments which confirmed your theory you ignored/skipped it with no comment - why ?

Sep 11, 2012
Assuming wave-particle duality is metaphysics!
WTF is metaphysical with soliton concept? The soliton is neither wave, neither particle.

AND IT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE!!

Sep 11, 2012
If there is anything I am sure of it is that in 100 years 12 year old children will laugh at the ideas being expressed in this conversation... but that's usually the case with bleeding-edge science.

Sep 11, 2012
How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
The concept of wave function and its collapse is physically real. It's merely an entanglement, i.e. the synchronization of wave function of observer with wave function of observed object.
Do you REALLY expect me to comment on this "entangled", garbled nonsense?

Sep 11, 2012

No, I'm not opposing the concept of "wave function", only a physical interpretation of it. Yes, decoherence occurs, but with the probability interpretation.

To interpret the intensity of an electron wave as a probability-distribution is the worst metaphysical Voodoo EVER!!

Sep 11, 2012
The exact opposite is being stated by me. I am denying it is meaningful to speak of things that are unobservable in principal.
The word is "principle".

I observed electron-diffraction which confirms that an electron moving through space is a single coherent wave, AND I observed the path of an electron within a bubble chamber which confirms that the electron has a centre-of-mass; and a centre-of charge.

Our intuitive conceptualizations of reality changes the form of reality to one dependent upon us,.. thus purely logically, conceptualized reality must be different in form from Reality as it is in itself. Mind(R) != R.
Thus the interpretation of the intensity of an electron wave as a probability-distribution is not a conceptualisation? It is just another one which prefers superstitious Voodoo!

If it is simpler to conceptualise it so that the wave-intensity dovetails with what we already know about waves, why is this a SIN? Get out of your drug-stupor!

Sep 11, 2012
This is why qm is non-classical and non-intuitive. This is why Bohr told Einstein " Albert, stop telling God what He can or cannot do". Einstein wish to subject Reality to preconceived notions (determinism),.
No he did not! He just found it strange that harmonic waves must now act as Voodoo entities while it was NEVER required before!..
while Bohr denied the validity of doing so.
Bohr refused to accept that the waves around a nucleus are stationary waves WITHOUT MOMENTUM AND KINETIC-ENERGY: This would have knocked his earlier model from its perch; which is what it shoulod have done. You cannot have stable orbits with momentum around a nucleus EVER!! No matter what their orbital momentums are. An electron ONLY stops emitting EM when it is NOT accelerating: Whatever its orbital momentum!

The mention of God by both men was purely an allegory.

I know that! But the mentality shown by Bohr by his remark proved that he is a metaphysicist; not a REAL physicist!

Sep 11, 2012
This is correct, except it is not about "intensity", which is a misapplication of that notion. Intensity implies many electrons, or many photons.
Why? A photon is a single coherent EM wave which MUST have an intensity proportional to h*(nu).


No, a single photon does not have an "intensity", which is why in the photo-electric effect phenomenon, the energy imparted to an electron from light depends not on it's intensity, but on it's frequency,... because the electron is absorbing single photons. Your e=hv is the energy.

Sep 11, 2012
A measurement made from earth is subject to the LT..
I see you misunderstood, the GPS *reports* its count rate to the ground station as digital data count of its atomic clock, it is *not* measured from the ground per se' Digital data are transmitted as time intervals (delta)t: The LT transformation mandates that (delta)t on the GPS clock cannot be observed to be the same on earth. Why is this simple fact so difficult to understand?


Sep 11, 2012
How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
When the bounadary conditions change, the wave MUST change shape and size (sometimes also energy) to adapt: This need not just happen by becomong smaller (collapse) but also by becomong larger (inflate). It has NO OTHER CHOICE when its boundary conditions change! Have you never solved a differential wave equation subject to different boundary conditions?


I asked you physically. You are the one stating that the wavefunction is a real thing.

Didn't you just say to me a few days ago,.....

"The components of a physical representation vary wrt velocity, but not the physics being represented - Noumenon"

Arguing mathematics instead of physics-reality - johanfprins


Sep 11, 2012
Furthermore, my understanding is that immediately prior to launch each GPS has their clock speed altered to account for GR *&* SR together as real factors which affect the atomic clock on board according to the experience the GPS is exposed to in its environment ie. GR *&* SR.
I am not an expert on setting GPS clocks: But from what I have read, they have to be regularly reset owing to SR. I might be wrong, but it is not important for me to become a GPS expert.

Earlier, I asked re experiments which confirmed your theory you ignored/skipped it with no comment - why
What experiments do you want? I am not NASA you know. I am just stating what the LT mandates MUST be the case when SR applies: AND this is that even when the clocks on the sattelite and on earth keep the exact same time, from the perspective of earth the clock on the satellite will be slower, while from the perspective of the satellite the clock on earth will be slower. This is in all elementary textbooks!

Sep 11, 2012
How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
The concept of wave function and its collapse is physically real. It's merely an entanglement, i.e. the synchronization of wave function of observer with wave function of observed object.
Do you REALLY expect me to comment on this "entangled", garbled nonsense?


Is it not clear to you that natello was referring to decoherance? You should have taken this as help.

Sep 11, 2012
If there is anything I am sure of it is that in 100 years 12 year old children will laugh at the ideas being expressed in this conversation... but that's usually the case with bleeding-edge science.

Especially your inane ideas!

Sep 11, 2012
No, a single photon does not have an "intensity", which is why in the photo-electric effect phenomenon, the energy imparted to an electron from light depends not on it's intensity, but on it's frequency,...
Are you deliberately a knucklehead? The photon energy is h*nu because this is the minimum energy that a coherent wave can have: This DOES not mean that it does not have an intensity proportiobal to h*nu.

Sep 11, 2012
I asked you physically. You are the one stating that the wavefunction is a real thing.
And I told you how. A moving electron wave DOES NOT have a complex wave-amplitude: Its wave amplitude is the potential of an electric field. It is thus real, and like any real wave amplitude it changes when the boundary conditions change: Have you EVER heard about wave-guides. Did you study physics anywhere?

Furthermore ant staionary light-wave; for example within a laser cavity or a black-body cavity has a comples wave-amplitude: When the dimensiona of the cavity changes, the complex amplitude and the intensity it represents must also change physically.

Arguing mathematics instead of physics-
I am arguing physics as you can see, but also using the correct mathematics: Not Dirac's singularities and similar claptrap.


Sep 11, 2012
Is it not clear to you that natello was referring to decoherance? You should have taken this as help.

Why? It is clear that neither natello, or you, even knows what decoherence is. If you cannot even understand the simplest of simplest issues that I have been trying to explain to you, why should I even try to get into decoherence?

OK goodnight for now!

Sep 11, 2012
No, a single photon does not have an "intensity", which is why in the photo-electric effect phenomenon, the energy imparted to an electron from light depends not on it's intensity, but on it's frequency,.. because the electron is absorbing single photons.
Are you deliberately a knucklehead? The photon energy is h*nu because this is the minimum energy that a coherent wave can have: This DOES not mean that it does not have an intensity proportiobal to h*nu.


Intensity by definition in qm, means the number of photons per unit area per unit time.

Should you really be insulting me?

Sep 11, 2012
johanfprins said
A measurement made from earth is subject to the LT..
Please understand, they are NOT measuring it from earth. Ground interrogates the GPS and it REPORTS its #count as per its environment.
johanfprins went on
Digital data are transmitted as time intervals (delta)t: The LT transformation mandates that (delta)t on the GPS clock cannot be observed to be the same on earth..
NO.
GPS packet digital data is not a (delta)T WRT earth. The digital data are numbers in a comms packet from the GPS, cannot change in transit !

We are not observing (delta)T on earth, we get the REPORT of only what the GPS experiences. Btw: This interrogation is not the method used by consumers, purely used by the admins to check GPS atomic clock.

This is the correct experimental methodology to cut through many types of issues as measurement is made at source etc...

Surely you can see the value of that approach ?

Sep 11, 2012
if there exists the smallest possible units of these quantities (such as the plank time/distance) then things exist in a particular place at a particular time.


Non-sequitur.

They could be existing in multiple particular places at the same time with some probability, or not completely in any one particular place.


This is an expression of our inability to probe at these scales... that's all. Existing in multiple places at the same time violates the definition of a "thing"... it would be multiple things with the same properties. Physical location is a property of a "thing"... The difference between one "thing" existing in multiple locations and multiple identical "things" each existing in their own location is purely semantics.


Or, the universe is wholly made up of pure energy, in all its magnificent forms; and, like in the Matrix... there is no spoon (or matter)...

Sep 12, 2012
Intensity by definition in qm, means the number of photons per unit area per unit time.
I know that this is the standard WRONG interpretation.

The fact is that a photon is a SINGLE coherent light-wave which propagates through space like ANY other SINGLE coherent light-wave does (for example a laser beam WHICH DOES NOT CONSIST OF DISTINGUISHABLE PHOTONS). Thus, the photon-wave has oscillating electric- and magnetic-field components. It is well known from Maxwell's equations that such a wave has a real energy-intensity.

A single electron wave MOVING through free space is simIlarly propagating as an EM field (except that it moves at a speed v

Sep 12, 2012
I do not know why only halve om my message was posted above.

To complete: ......(except that it moves with a speed v

Sep 12, 2012
@ johanfprins Further to my last post.

SR is asymmetrical, it applies to the IRF that moves away under acceleration (no matter how brief or otherwise) & if/when the moving IRF returns the clocks will not reconcile, the period of time at motion & velocity are critical.

This is confirmed by the GPS in their role as instruments (& designed that way to report on GR and SR as required to maintain accuracy).

Change in atomic clock rate is measured in the GPS environment & assessed not by (delta)T from Earth but instead by a comms packet containing the digital data count (ie doesnt change in transit).

Your claim SR is merely a perception (with impatient, nasty & impolite bluster) is NOT correct.

General discussion can be found on here:- http://en.wikiped...lativity

Understandably as its wikipedia (can be amended) its obviously appropriate to rifle through the references with due diligence.

Your polite response please, when convenient (& take your time too) ?

Sep 12, 2012
Again it does not get through: ..v

Sep 12, 2012
Intensity by definition in qm, means the number of photons per unit area per unit time.


LET ME TRY AGAIN:
I know that this is the standard WRONG interpretation.

The fact is that a photon is a SINGLE coherent light-wave which propagates through space like ANY other SINGLE coherent light-wave does (for example a laser beam WHICH DOES NOT CONSIST OF DISTINGUISHABLE PHOTONS). Thus, the photon-wave has oscillating electric- and magnetic-field components. It is well known from Maxwell's equations that such a wave has a real energy-intensity.

A single electron wave MOVING through free space is simIlarly propagating as an EM field (except that it moves at a speed v that is less than c). It thius has an EM field-intensity equal to m*c^2.

I apologise if you find me insulting; but you are exasperating since you are not even willing to try and think outside mainstream dogma: Not even for argument's sake: Mainstream dogma is like the Pater Noster to you!

Sep 12, 2012
We are not observing (delta)T on earth, we get the REPORT of only what the GPS experiences. Btw: This interrogation is not the method used by consumers, purely used by the admins to check GPS atomic clock.
As I have stated: I am not an expert on the resetting of GPS clocks: Neither do I have the time on this forum to become one; since we are discussing the HUP.

All I am stating is that when two IRF's move relative to one another with a relative speed v, no matter whether they are approaching or receding, the clock running at a rate measured within the IRF, within which it is stationary, is observed to be running slower within the other IRF and vice versa. This means that the rate within your IRF is NOT the rate at which the moving clock actually keeps time.

Whether this is also the case when the clock follows a circular path relative to me, I do not know, and frankly I do not care. All I know is that twins receding from one another cannot age at different rates.


Sep 12, 2012
@ johanfprins Further to my last post.

SR is asymmetrical, it applies to the IRF that moves away under acceleration (no matter how brief or otherwise) & if/when the moving IRF returns the clocks will not reconcile, the period of time at motion & velocity are critical.
There is no experimental proof whatsoever that this is so.

Please read my statement above and let us stick to HUP.


Sep 12, 2012
SR is asymmetrical, it applies to the IRF that moves away under acceleration (no matter how brief or otherwise) & if/when the moving IRF returns the clocks will not reconcile, the period of time at motion & velocity are critical.
There is no experimental proof whatsoever that this is so.
Wrong johanfprins, unless you have ignored it because it doesnt fit your dogma.

Please look here:- http://en.wikiped...periment

And prelim discussion http://en.wikiped..._paradox

There does appear to be significant evidence confirming SR is asymmetrical.

There is no evidence suggesting your hypothesis has foundation that SR is merely a perception. GPS deals with this many many times on a daily basis !

Please take my advice and sleep on it, a week is fine, get to grips with not being needlessly emotionally attached to an idea and willing to seek out the provenance of truth with great detachment & integrity as claimed.

Sep 12, 2012
Wrong johanfprins, unless you have ignored it because it doesnt fit your dogma.
Where has an experiment been done outside of a gravitational field where a clock has been accelerated to a high speed, allowed to move with a constant speed v, then decelerated to return at the same constant speed, then decelerated to stop at the position of the clock that has been left behind and then compared to see whether there is a time difference which can be solely ascribed to the LT for the periods that the clocks moved with a constant speed relative to one another? Nowhere!

There is no evidence suggesting your hypothesis
I made NO hypothesis. I only applied the LT when IRF's are moving with a constant speed relative to one another, and found that the clocks must be keeping the same time-rate relative to their own IRF's.

Where have I been emotional? YOU are deducing results from experiments which are contaminated by gravitational effects. This is irresponsible and naive!

Sep 12, 2012
@ johanfprins
Did you BOTHER to read the links I offered fully & with integrity ?

There are many experiments which confirm SR is not perception, read links fully PLEASE & browse references !

In case of the jumbo jets, (delta) gravitational field is small wrt the atomic clocks on ground, the effect shown re eastward and westward is significant & does fit with the predictions of SR.

Please read & try not to get impolite again and argue for the sake of it - else I'll recommend you see your doctor re the onset of alzheimers, no joke, I have studied this with great depth along with engineering, psychology & food science.

Please take the TIME & re-examine honestly your thinking processes, you seem to be falling into the classic crystalline paradigm of ignoring evidence which doesnt support your hypothesis & seeking evidence which supports it, so far there is NONE in that latter respect.

Please Please, take your time, quick responses show reactionary zeal not integrity or maturity !

Sep 12, 2012
I apologise if you find me insulting; but you are exasperating since you are not even willing to try and think outside mainstream dogma: Not even for argument's sake: Mainstream dogma is like the Pater Noster to you!


I know enough, not be so confident with naïveté to think I can improve upon SR and QM.

Sep 12, 2012
I know enough, not be so confident with naïveté to think I can improve upon SR and QM.
You have just now broken the most important golden rule in physics (in fact all science): If you are a REAL physicist you MUST accept that every theory and model we rely on at present can be proved wrong in future. If this is not your approach you are a traitor to everything that objective science stands for. In fact you are guilty of high treason, and should, in the interest of the future of physics, be given the death penalty!

Sep 12, 2012
LOL, what are you talking about? Where did I say that those theories can't be improved upon? I said "I" am unable to do so, not that no one can. Reread, then issue a retraction.

I'm saying that one can know just enough to think they know better, but not enough to know they don't.

You've have stated a few factually incorrect things, then when called on it you retort that "mainstream" physics is wrong. Generally, they are not "wrong" per say since they are back by experimental confirmation directly or indirectly.

Sep 12, 2012
I said "I" am unable to do so, not that no one can. Reread, then issue a retraction.
That we all agree on. It is clear that you are totally lost when it comes to physics.

You've have stated a few factually incorrect things,
Examples please! Obviously I disagree with quite a bit of mainsteam physics but I also give valid reasons why it is wrong. You in your typical dishonest manner try to create the impression that I do not give any physics-reasons for what I claim. Neither do you follow up on my valid arguments. It is clear that you are not willing to argue issues but to at all costs defend mainstream dogma; no matter how absurd and Voodoo it has become.
Generally, they are not "wrong" per say since they are back by experimental confirmation directly or indirectly.
Like the Higgs boson, like claiming that what we do at present affects the past? Sheez

Sep 12, 2012
@ johanfprins
Did you BOTHER to read the links I offered fully & with integrity ?
I have read many of these links and not one of them is giving any proof that the clocks travelling with two twins are keeping different time-rates while the twins are moving at constant speed from, or towards one another. The Lorentz transformation is very clear on this; namely that both twins esxperience that the other twin's clock is running slower. If you do not agree with this, then the LT must be wrong and it is up to you to prove that it is wrong!

It is ludicrous to claim that when twin A experiences twin B's clock to be slower by a certain amount while twin B experiences that twin A's clock is slower by the same amount, that there can be asymmetry so that one clock does actually go slower than the other. It is like stating that the two twins are identical, especially the one!


Sep 12, 2012
Please take the TIME & re-examine honestly your thinking processes, you seem to be falling into the classic crystalline paradigm of ignoring evidence which doesnt support your hypothesis
I NEVER do this
& seeking evidence which supports it, so far there is NONE in that latter respect.
I have given you what I get when applying the LT. YOU are the one ignoring this. Now since you are so objective: Start with twinB and an time interval t(S) on his/her clock and use the LT to derive the time interval t(A) which twinA experiences. Now take the same time interval t(S) on twinA's clock and use the reverse LT to derive the time t(B) that twinB experiences: YOU will see that t(A)=t(B).

Please Please, take your time, quick responses show reactionary zeal not integrity or maturity !
This is what I am asking YOU to do!!! Take your time to do the derivation I have just pointed out, then take your time to try and figure it out: The asymmetry is your Alzheimer head.

Sep 12, 2012
Johan
My question is that if an electron is a traditional EM wave propagating in every possible direction with energy density decreasing as the wavefront expands then how is it that a detector finds all the electron energy at one point when a detection occurs??

Sep 12, 2012
I already explained above why there is an asymmetry in the two twins relative movement, and so, why it's not a paradox and that the moving twin is younger upon return. In order to return home, the moving twin must enter a different IFR (another application of LT). PRIOR to this 2nd application of the LT yes there was symmetry.

But I guess John Wheeler, Albert Eintein, Roger Pentose, Stephen Hawking, Rochard Feynman, etc,.. are all wrong, and johanfprins who spends time arguing about it over the Internet , is right. Is this what you're telling me?

http://en.wikiped..._paradox tripy

Sep 12, 2012
Johan
My question is that if an electron is a traditional EM wave propagating in every possible direction with energy density decreasing as the wavefront expands then how is it that a detector finds all the electron energy at one point when a detection occurs??


He will tell you it's because the "electron wave" enters boundary conditions at the detection point as a standing wave. He wil not say how physically the electron enters a particular atom rather than another some distance away. I already tried.

Sep 12, 2012
Johan
My question is that if an electron is a traditional EM wave propagating in every possible direction with energy density decreasing as the wavefront expands then how is it that a detector finds all the electron energy at one point when a detection occurs??


He will tell you it's because the "electron wave" enters boundary conditions at the detection point as a standing wave. He wil not say how physically the electron enters a particular atom rather than another some distance away. I already tried.


Standing wave ??? A standing wave at least in my understanding is only something that is set up after very many reflections back and forth between two boundaries, not sure how that would apply here..

What happens to the energy that was propagating in all the other directions after the detection at a particular point?
It would have to mysteriously vanish if thermodynamics is valid.


Sep 12, 2012
Whichever entity undergoes acceleration to leave a reference frame is the one who has the time slow down relative to the other.
It is the acceleration that makes the difference.

Sep 12, 2012
Whichever entity undergoes acceleration to leave a reference frame is the one who has the time slow down relative to the other.
It is the acceleration that makes the difference.


It is impossible to know which one accelerated and which one remained stationary...

It's possible that when we send a rocket into space it is all of reality that moves around it while the rocket remains stationary. It may sound ridiculous, but that's the fundamental point of relativity, that it's impossible to determine whether one object is moving or the other, or if they are both moving, and if both are moving which percentage of the relative velocity is contributed by each... there is no difference between any of these possibilities.

Sep 12, 2012
Acceleration from a reference frame is verifiable due to the forces generated from f=ma.

I don't know for sure what i am talking about but i always wondered what would happen if you had two perfect timepieces, one on each wrist that were perfectly synchronized with the wrists together and then one moved away and returned. Which timepiece would run slower after the return. The one that moved i always reasoned.

Sep 12, 2012
Johan
My question is that if an electron is a traditional EM wave propagating in every possible direction with energy density decreasing as the wavefront expands then how is it that a detector finds all the electron energy at one point when a detection occurs??

It is refreshing to have an intelligent question:

A coherent light-wave need not be a spherical wave: For example, a laser-beam of any length is a coherent wave along the direction in which it moves.

An electron-wave is similar: Its wavelength is determined within te IRF relative to which it is moving. Within the IRF within the e-wave is stationary it is spherical. When viewed from another IRF moving with speed v, it is longer and it has wave-fronts owing to the Lorentz transformation. In fact, the LT is responsible (or is the result) of the wave nature of matter.

The wave-energy within the IRF within which the e-wave is stationary is the rest-mass of the electron. No Higgs boson needed to explain mass-energy

Sep 12, 2012
But I guess John Wheeler, Albert Eintein, Roger Pentose, Stephen Hawking, Rochard Feynman, etc,.. are all wrong, and johanfprins who spends time arguing about it over the Internet , is right. Is this what you're telling me?
You do not have to guess. Just do the calculation that I asked you to do and you will find that, YES, they are all wrong! Quite a shock is it not?


Sep 12, 2012
He will tell you it's because the "electron wave" enters boundary conditions at the detection point as a standing wave. He wil not say how physically the electron enters a particular atom rather than another some distance away. I already tried.
No you have not!! You are such a liar! Really, have you got NO SHAME WHATSOEVER?

In order for a wave to be detected it has to resonate with the detector: Do you know what a radio is and how to detect radio-waves? Or have you not yet understood this simple physics.

Resonance involves (delta)E*(delta)t of Heisenberg. This allows the electron wave to borrow energy and to jump into the absorber with which it resonates.

If the buffoons in charge of mainstream physics did not consistently block my publications you will have known how it works already 8 years ago.

There is not enough space here to do the simple mathematics involved.

Part of a radio-wave also collapses into your radio's antenna, or else your radio would not have worked

Sep 12, 2012
Standing wave ??? A standing wave at least in my understanding is only something that is set up after very many reflections back and forth between two boundaries, not sure how that would apply here..
Again, you are a breath of fresh air! A "standing wave" still oscillates and this requires a medium (aether). A light-wave within a laser cavity can thus not be a standing wave: It is a stationary wave which must have a complex amplitude so that its intensity is time-independent rest-mass energy.

When a light wave resonates with an electron wave, it "enters" the electron-wave and thus adds mass-energy to the electron-wave: For this reason the electron-wave must morph into a higher-energy electron wave. Bohr stupidly called this morphing a "quantum jump".

What happens to the energy that was propagating in all the other directions after the detection at a particular point?
As pointed out above, an electron-wave cannot propagate in all directions.

Sep 12, 2012
Whichever entity undergoes acceleration to leave a reference frame is the one who has the time slow down relative to the other.
It is the acceleration that makes the difference.
Well at least you are not as retarded as Mike Massen, who claims that the time difference develops while the twins are moving with a constant speed relative to one another.

Even so there is no proof that time slows down on a clock when it accelerates except for Einstein's postulate of equivalence: I suspect that this postulate is not correct. But I am willing to accept for the time being that acceleration might be responsible. This, however, does not mean that the LT mandates a difference in time rate when the relative motion is at constant speed.


Sep 12, 2012
It is impossible to know which one accelerated and which one remained stationary...
For once I can agree with you! ignoring any reaction-forces and looking out, one can conclude that the other body is accelerating relative to you while the oher body can conclude that it is you who are accelerating relative to him/her.


Sep 12, 2012
Acceleration from a reference frame is verifiable due to the forces generated from f=ma.
This is an excellent reponse but except for feeling an artificial "gravity", there might not be an effect on a clock as in the case of curved space-time. The clock might keep the same time-rate even though it is accelerating.

These issues still need objective studies from balanced phycisists: If one can still find such persons! Not people like Noumenon!! God forbid!!

After all, why would light move at another speed than c relative to an accelerating IRF. If it could, one should be able to break the light-barrier by accelerating. I do not think so!


Sep 12, 2012

What I read, when I saw the headline was: "We are not sure about the uncertainty principle." But what about Heisenberg...?

Sep 13, 2012
johanfprins ignores evidence, makes personal attacks & LIES
Well at least you are not as retarded as Mike Massen, who claims..
I'm not making claims, I'm pointing to evidence !

johanfprins is fixated on interpretation of LT hypothesised BEFORE experiments were undertaken !

Please exercise "INTEGRITY" by examining evidence Eg:-
http://en.wikiped...periment

There are others if able to move outside blind attachment to LT.

Ah johanfprins, 'might' be waking with
But I am willing to accept for the time being that acceleration might be responsible. This, however, does not mean that the LT mandates a difference in time rate when the relative motion is at constant speed.
EXACTLY what GPS shows as they were also SET UP to examine it!

Confirmed you know little of GPS, look it up with "INTEGRITY".

The clocks are preset faster to account for GR *&* SR, the results are successful & for decades, continuous confirmation.

Evidence & INTEGRITY please !

Sep 13, 2012
I'm not making claims, I'm pointing to evidence !
Of course you are claiming that when two clocks move with a constant speed RELATIVE to one another, the one clock has a slower rate than the other. This violates the LT on which SR is based.

johanfprins is fixated on interpretation of LT hypothesised BEFORE experiments were undertaken !
If, as you claim the experiments prove that the two clocks keep different rates then LT must be rejected as being wrong! Do you conclude that LT is wrong?

There are others if able to move outside blind attachment to LT.
There is no blind attachment on my part: There are only two possibilities: 1. LT is correct and no time rate difference OR 2. experimenatlly there is a time difference so LT has to be rejected. You claim the experiments prove there is a time difference. Do you reject LT?

I do not see any EVIDENCE in the experimental data that LT is wrong.

Evidence & INTEGRITY
Yes! Why do you not try your own advice?

Sep 13, 2012
Please exercise "INTEGRITY" by examining evidence Eg:-
http://en.wikiped...periment
I know these pathetic experiments and after having analysed the results I see no proof whatsoever that two clocks moving in free space with a constant speed relative to one another, will keep time at different rates. Only a physics-fool will conclude this from this data.

I am willing to accept for the time being that acceleration might be responsible. This, however, does not mean that the LT mandates a difference in time rate when the relative motion is at constant speed.
EXACTLY what GPS shows as they were also SET UP to examine it!
So what is your argument? After attacking me like a rabid dog, you now agree that GPS does not prove that two clocks moving with a constant linear speed relative to one another keep different times: Bravo!


Sep 13, 2012
Of course you are claiming that when two clocks move with a constant speed RELATIVE to one another, the one clock has a slower rate than the other. This violates the LT on which SR is based.


You a crank and a fraud and are dishonest. You continue to purposely and dishinestly ignore that the two moving clocks are not simply moving away from each other,... one of them RETURNS, meaning changes IFR during the return.

You have been told by me and mike multiple times that in order for the moving twin to return to earth he must change his IRF, so they're asymmetrical wrt SR.

In fact the effect of acceleration is not even required to get the point, if one imagines upon taking a gradual. urged path back to earth, each tangent along the path is another IRF and therefore another application of LT.

We are talking about speeds approaching c, and there for space-time.

Sep 13, 2012
In fact the effect of acceleration is not even required to get the point, if one imagines upon taking a gradual [...] path back to earth, each tangent along the path is another IRF and therefore another application of LT.

[edited above]