January 29, 2013 feature
Of Einstein and entanglement: Quantum erasure deconstructs wave-particle duality
(Phys.org)—Quantum physics presents several counterintuitive features, including entanglement, tunneling and – as demonstrated in double-slit experiments – wave-particle duality. When studying wave-particle duality, however, so-called interferometric quantum eraser experiments – in which wave-like behavior can be restored by erasing path information – allow researchers to perform differential measurements on each of two entangled quantum systems. (Double-slit experiments not involving quantum erasure utilize superposition of single particles, while in quantum eraser experiments two particles are entangled.) Specifically, the particle feature's welcher-weg (which-path) information is erased (or not) from one system, and interference-based measurements in the other system are used to observe (or not, as the case may be) its wave feature.
While previous quantum eraser experiments made the erasure choice before or (in delayed-choice experiments) after the interference – thereby allowing communications between erasure and interference in the two systems, respectively – scientists in Prof. Anton Zeilinger's group at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the University of Vienna recently reported a quantum eraser experiment in which they prevented this communications possibility by enforcing Einstein locality. They accomplished this using hybrid path-polarization entangled photon pairs distributed over an optical fiber link of 55 meters in one experiment and over a free-space link of 144 kilometers in another. Choosing the polarization measurement for one photon decided whether its entangled partner followed a definite path as a particle, or whether this path-information information was erased and wave-like interference appeared. They concluded that since the two entangled systems are causally disconnected in terms of the erasure choice, wave-particle duality is an irreducible feature of quantum systems with no naïve realistic explanation. The world view that a photon always behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication, and should therefore be abandoned as a description of quantum behavior.
What does this mean for scientists describing a quantum state without relying purely on mathematics? One way, says Dr. Xiao-Song Ma, lead author of the paper, is that the quantum state can be viewed, as Erwin Schrödinger wrote1, as an expectation-catalogue or sum of knowledge – that is, a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes. Whether the outcome of each individual measurement is wave, particle or their superposition depends on the state and measurement context.
Ma also discussed the challenges he, Prof. Anton Zeilinger and their colleagues faced in conducting their research with Phys.org. "The main challenge of our quantum eraser experiment is the arrangement of the individual events such that various space-time configurations, including Einstein's locality condition, were fulfilled," Ma says. Achieving that required separate labs, a quantum random number generator, a very fast electro-optical modulator, precise optical and electrical delays, and other sophisticated techniques.
Another challenge was employing hybrid path-polarization entangled photon pairs distributed over the optical fiber and free-space links. "In order to implement the quantum eraser," Ma continues, "we maintained the entanglement between the path and the polarization of two photons and kept the phase and polarization stable over the measurement duration."
Addressing these challenges meant doing things differently than all quantum eraser experiments performed to date, in particular by establishing strict Einstein locality between the relevant events. "We achieved this by implementing independent active choices that were space-like separated from the interference," Ma explains. "These choices were made by a quantum random number generator and then implemented by an electro-optical modulator."
When two events are separated by a space-like interval, not enough time passes between their occurrences for there to exist a causal relationship crossing the spatial distance between the two events at or below the speed of light. While the two events can be observed to occur at the same time, there is no reference frame in which the two events can occur in the same spatial location or where they can occur in each other's future or past.
To maintain entanglement between the path and the polarization of photon pairs, Ma points out that the researchers first produced bright highly-entangled polarization pairs using a spontaneous parametric down-conversion process. "We converted the polarization states of the system photon into its path states in an interferometer via a polarizing beam splitter and polarization controllers, while maintaining the polarization state of the environment photon. By carefully adjusting these components, we eliminated the polarization distinguishablity of the path states of the system photon and generated hybrid entangled photon pairs. In order to maintain this hybrid entanglement, we paid exceptional attention in keeping these photons away from decoherence."
Specifically, for the polarization states, they had to compensate the polarization rotation and depolarization caused by optical fibers via various tubing and frequently monitoring the polarization transmission fidelity. "For the path states," Ma illustrates, "we had to isolate the system photon from phase noises, which reduce interference visibility." In order to achieve that, they used home-made acoustic-isolation surroundings to protect the interferometer.
In future experiments, notes Ma, the scientists are planning to develop a brighter photon-pair source, low-noise single-photon detectors, faster optical modulators with higher duty cycles, and more precise clock synchronization. "In our experiment, another practical challenge is limited signal-to-noise ratio" says Ma. "This is because most quantum phenomena are very fragile to noise and can be easily washed away." To overcome this problem and demonstrate the counterintuitive features of quantum mechanics, the researchers have to increase the signal and/or reduce the noise.
"To increase the signal," Ma continues, "we have to generate more photons. Therefore, a brighter photon-pair source will be certainly helpful. Additionally, more precise clock synchronization will also improve our results: It will allow us to use a much smaller coincidence window and hence reject the false coincidence stemming from noise. This is possible because time-energy entanglement allows the intrinsic uncertainty of the generation time of photon pairs to be much smaller than the timing jitter of the present remote clock synchronization techniques – for example, the GPS system used in their current study.
Finally, Ma points out that noise is mainly from the dark counts of single-photon detectors. Therefore, it is very crucial to reduce these dark counts, which is possible by using some advanced cooling techniques. "All these improvements can be evaluated by using photon counting and entanglement verification."
Ma also says that quantum communication and quantum information processing may benefit from their findings. "Our experiment is important for foundations of quantum mechanics as well as quantum information processing, especially quantum communication. The architecture of our experiment could be used for a satellite-to-ground station quantum communication prototype and hence provide the basis for a worldwide information network, in which quantum mechanical effects enable the exchange of messages with greater security and the ability to perform certain calculations more efficiently than is possible with conventional technologies."
Explore further
Related:
1The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A Translation of Schrodinger's ''Cat Paradox'' Paper, translated by John D. Trimmer, originally published in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124, 323-38 (1980)
Copyright 2013 Phys.org
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of Phys.org.
User comments
Like this link.
I'm talking not only about this but also it's source material.
Anyways, since I'm not in a position right now for deep reading, I got the impression that they are stating that their experiments demonstrate that there is no such thing as a definite states, like particle or a wave, and that it is either more complex than that or that there are varying level between those two states?
Can someone who had the time to read the whole thing confirm this and/or expand on it if necessary? Sorry for what might seem like laziness.
You got it right. There is no actual particle or wave,... the underlying reality, apart from observation, is neither.
To make an observation requires the use of concepts at our scale, in constructing apparatus and interpreting results, and this adds the form to the underlying reality, a particle or a wave. In other words the act of 'conceptualizing' reality adds something artificial, which is not existent apart from an observer.
The non-intuitive nature of qm means that it is not possible to conform reality within our conceptual framework consistently, demonstrating that some of our concepts are artifacts of thought, and so dependent upon mind, rather than something intrinsic to Reality itself.
I already explained wave-particle duality here many times. The vacuum is behaving like the elastic foam, which gets more dense under shaking and it forms a less or more dense blob of vacuum foam at the place, where the energy is just spreading. The more dense place is behaving like both wave, both particle after then.
Try to imagine, you're a sailor, who is staying at night on the end of floating wharf, to which some boat is attached. Because night sea is stormy, everything (both sailor, wharf and boat) are wobbling up and down, but in different phases. From the perspective of sailor this boat sways randomly.
The observation of particle is analogous to situation, when sailor touches the boat for a moment, thus exchanging some kinetic energy with it. The wharf and boat will begin to oscillate at phase and the sailor will not detect any boat wobbling anymore.
Agree with that Zephyr, you have never posted truer words.
And I'm afraid you might have to explain it here many more times before there will be any hope that I will understand what might be going on in that head of yours. It's way beyond my meager abilities.
Have you conducted this experiment yourself? And you didn't detect any boat wobbling anymore? Were you the drunken sailor? Or the outside particle?
Oh, well if it's dedicated to clever people only, I'll have to forgo my great desire to understand you Zeph,,,
But do keep trying to show us the way, maybe some of it will finally sink in one day.
LOL @Q-Star
m(%)m
How else are they gonna get you to read the whole article...
This seems not just counterintuitive, it is more like magic because we do not know how it works! Actually in playing a real magic, the magician do know how it works, maybe this paper could show us the mechanism behind the quantum physics features.
http://www.vacuum...17〈=en
Interestingly enough, you just explained it using a MICROscopic metaphor...
Is it wrong?
No, I most certainly didn't. I in no way employed a visual metaphor based on perceptual physiology that has evolved to function within a narrow macroscopic level of scale. Moreover, saying that QM is the math is not a metaphor - it's description articulated within the bounds of a purely symbolic language.
Firstly, electron beam tomography (EBT) is a noninvasive method used to detect coronary artery
calcium (CAC). The images you've apparently seen were acquired using atomic force microscopy (AFM), which can be used to image and manipulate atoms on a variety of surfaces. The atom at the apex of the AFM tip detects individual atoms on the underlying surface when it forms chemical bonds with each atom. The "marbles" you saw are energy distributions. Each species of atom has a characteristic bonding energy, so the images allow atoms to be visually identified.
Unverified ideas are not explanations. Have you heard of the scientific method?
What is that? Math? No they're not - they are fields of energy.
And I noticed you requalified your metaphor to "visual" which was not in the comment I quoted.
I rather believe you've been hoisted by your own petard.
Don't use a metaphor (not talking bout your QM is math" statement) to denigrate someone elses. It's disengenuous.
By the way. Math IS a metaphor used to interpret physical parameters we observe and visualize those we CANNOT observe.
Now, do you accept wave/particle duality as a state of matter?
You run away when I challenge you and thencomes back with the same superstitious, paranormal BS.
What you all call a "particle" is a localized wave: As in the case of ALL waves ever discovered the size and shape is determined by the boundary conditions. When you make a measurement you change the boundary conditions and the wave morphs into another shape and size. The new shape might require the same wave to form different parts, as in the case where it moves through both slits. When you measure "which path" the wave has followed, you change the boundary conditions so that the wave morphs again in order to be detected as a localized wave. If you want to be superstitious, like Zeilinger is, you conclude that you have determined "which path" a "particle has followed. The wave, consisting of two fractions has followed BOTH PATHS until it is collapsed.
I can imagine the sender deciding to either record which-way (0) or not (1) and firing lots of photons off. If the receiver can figure out which choice the sender made based on the interference pattern they see (or not) then they can figure out if a 0/1 was transmitted.
I must be missing something but what?
No.
If the sender already decided it and THEN fired photons will reach the receiver with the speed of light. So it's not FTL (but just regular communication).
And the article states it quite plainly
Encryption is possible, though (as mentioned in the last paragraph) as encryption does not add information in a information-theory sense.
only then we are able to explain entangled CATS and human and even material consciousness.
Wavefunction Collapse and Human Choice-Making Inside an Entangled Mirror Symmetrical Multiverse
Thus a wave that follows a SINGLE trajectory encounters two slits, split in two lobes which move simultaneously through the slits. The parts interfere.
If the wave is a single photon-wave, it can ONLY be observed as a single wave (No coherent wave can have less energy). Thus if you do not disturb the two lobes of the wave, you have a diffracted wave-front reaching the detection screen. There it can only be observed by an atomic sized detector. So it collapses and leaves a spot. (proceed below)
If you are stupid, you try and detect through which slit the wave has come. Since you can only detect a single photon at a time, the two lobes of the wave collapse, so that the collapsed wave now again follows a single trajectory: Since all the photon-waves which now reach the screen are collapsed waves, the spots do not give the intensity of a diffracted wave-front.
What the HELL is the problem with you guys? It is simple wave-behavior all the way!!! The two parts of the photon are entangled while they exist. You can have a SINGLE coherent wave with more energy: It can also move through both slits and its two parts will be entangled even though the wave is not a photon.
I don't "run away", its just that you're so insulting, that I interpret it as you asking me to leave the conversation.
You have some vagaries in your theory of realism (interpreting the wavefunction as a real wave entity). Your use of the term collapse is not clear. Yes, I know about absorption and resonance,... I'm speaking about how an extended wave (photon) much larger than an atom, since it interferes with itself, can collapse into a specific atom. You attribute a varying intensity to a single photon wave,... but experimentally electromagnetic intensity is found to be proportional to the number of photons, which is why M.Born had to inform Schrodinger of the need for probability interpretation of his wave.
Your statement that "Resonance occurs more easily where the wave-front has it highest intensity" is vague. Why? What do you mean "more easily"? The definition of a photon is that it is of a specific frequency and lowest possible intensity.
Thus if the boundary conditions are such that the volume of the wave has to become smaller, it has to collapse. If the boundary-conditions are such that the wave must become larger, it inflates: The latter happens when a localized photon-wave reaches double-slits. The boundary-conditions cause it to inflate and to move through both slits. On the other side it expands further until it reaches an atomic-absorber with which it resonates: It then has to again collapse to be absorbed. This is what waves do!
It is less Voodoo than the collapse of a probability; is it not?
Although a higher energy coherent wave can disentangle into photons, it does not consist of separate photons: Its energy is determined by the intensity of its electric- and magnetic field components; as can be proved from Maxwell's magnificent equations. This is also the case for the minimum-energy coherent wave, which is the photon.
If you tune your radio within a region where the emitted carrier wave-intensity is low, you will get a weaker resonance and signal. This is how waves behave.
That is why it can only be absorbed by an atomic absorber that matches this frequency: It has to resonate in order to be detected: This is what waves do!
Its integrated intensity is equal to h*nu, but this intensity can be distributed within a smaller or larger volume as determined by the boundary conditions. When it moves through two slits the photon diffracts in exactly the same manner as any other coherent wave like a laser beam, and it thus forms regions in space where its intensity is higher and regions in space where its intensity is lower. It has a higher probability to resonate with an absorber situated within the regions which have higher intensities. What the hell has this got to do with probability "built into nature". The latter idea is completely insane!
Interesting but far too complicated to be physics! All of 20th century physics can be derived from Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations. Even Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is just a better interpretation of Maxwell's equations; which led to a fix in Newton's laws at high speed.
Einstein then tripped over his own feet by deriving length contraction and time dilation. Both these concepts violate his postulate of the constancy of light speed. In fact when using the Lorentz transformation correctly to determine the properties of a moving rod, one obtains de Broglie's wave-momentum relationship. Everything fits beautifully and very simply together.
Petard? How 19th century. Also, to correct what you wrote: I used the term metaphorical to describe the type of analogy that particles and waves represent.
Math is a precise symbolic language for describing and predicting processes and behavior. Natural language, on the other hand, is largely metaphorical and imprecise in which those metaphors are derived from our sensory experiences, which in this discussion of particles, waves, marbles and the like are visual (which I added for clarification, Mr. Sensitive).
In any case, to answer your question: No, because w/p duality is a measurement artifact, not a feature of the quantum world. Many physicists acknowledge this, but employ this language as a non-mathematical way of describing QM to non-physicists. More astute physicists are abandoning this practice.
At the scale of a photon information transfer has light speed C.
BS! BS!
Not when two photons have entangled to form a SINGLE holistic wave which is in immediate contact with itself within the whole region of space that it occupies! Two separate photons or electrons cannot communicate faster than the speed of light. This has been proved.
It is still a visualization process (abstract), no matter how precise you make it. Thereby (from my own perspective to better my own methodology of understanding the concept), metaphorical at its basic nature.
Okay, enough of the semantics square dancing. Onto the next;
(cont)
I am only translating, here, using my own meager "metaphorical method". As simple as I am capable of putting it words, I hope.
A photon (a defined "particle" of energy at rest) can not be parsed further. It either exists or does not. It's most basic "quantum" state. What makes it "exist" is it's potential to take an action.
One question - in a vacuum, will that quantum do ANYthing, besides exist, unless it "entangles" with some other quantum "particle" and/or basic quantum force? (Or mirrors)
And lastly - is at rest relative to the experimentor or is it rest relative to (inclusively) all other observable kinetic actions in the Universe?
A photon has the attributes of a particle. Sometimes. It also displays attributes of a wave. At other times. That is what the particle/wave duality is about. It's why we are forced to use TWO completely different models to work with the photon. It depends on the observation,,,,, Sometimes it's one, and sometimes it's the other. It's not both at the same time,,,, hence the great quandary in quantum physics of p/w duality. Don't confuse the speculations in these articles as being solved physics or tested theories. That are no more than speculations.
A photon as a waveform travels at "c". It doesn't speed up or slow down, acceleration. It just IS moving at "c". It is never at rest. All reference frames are the same,,, it moves at "c"
As a particle it pops into existence traveling at "c". It pops out of existence moving at "c". It does not accelerate, speed up or slow down.
It all depends on what you are looking at whether it is a waveform or a particle.
See: abstract illustration shows four particles of light can be produced and manipulated in such a way that one can later decide in which quantum state two of the particles have been.
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Thanks, again.
The particular aspect of the rest state was - dead stop or moving. 0 or 1. Yhat understanding is of course, only relative to me/us as the observer(s). We would have to be observing from OUTSIDE our current universe to see any other aspect of it's motion. We can suspect it, imagine it, even calculate it. But we can not actually observe it until our "vantage point" changes.
Unless we come up with some really clever way of inferring it...
No worries, Larry... Imagine what that photon must be thinking.
"I travel at C, so therefore I am..."
Valid question. The only answer (for me) might be as a result of tiny variations in c at other points within this universal existence. I am slowly beginning to suspect that ALL photons are entangled, but a change in one is happening in an interconnecting sequence to all others. This is the point when a better understanding of physics math would come in handy, I'll bet.
You are right, it's all about the numbers. But even more importantly, how those numbers interconnect(relate).
If only I had more time...
I don't. Hence, the simple seeming questions from MY relative reference point...:-)
Larry, not a physics or calculus guy,so I have no applicable observations to share except what I have read here. Under that proviso, what I say, may or not be observationally verified, already.You have to be the judge (along with "more informed" contributors).
cont.
As to where on the electron a photon might makes it exit from, well - you're now trying to visualize in it's particle state.
The exit point should logically be perpendicular to the spin, but I have a suspicion it might actually be 30 degrees (or less) above or below that point.. No observational data to support this, so merely conjecture.
What I would REALLY like to know for myself is - do electrons change levels on a regularly timed basis (when surrounding a nucleus)or only if in conjuction with proximity to another "matching situation" electron.
Logic tells me it should have a synchronous change when in "orbit" around a nucleus (except for Hydrogen). But - no observation support.
Q, Noum, or smd might be able to field that one.
In space, it is a coherent EM wave moving with speed c relative to all bodies as determined by Maxwell's waves. Its EM energy has no rest-mass component; because it does not have an inertial reference frame within which it can be at rest.
When trapped within a cavity, for example a laser cavity, or a black-body cavity, or by an electron-orbital around the nucleus, it forms a stationary wave, which can also be modeled by Maxwell's equations: Its EM energy is now stationary and is therefore rest-mass energy. No Higg's "particle" required. The concept of "particles" is Voodoo. Why call a localized wave a "particle" when a light wave also has a center of mass?
Hello LarryD, looking at the problem from a different perspective,... the divergence of an electric field is proportional to the electric charge (inside the volume integrated),... while the divergence of a magnetic field would reasonably be the magnetic charge. But there are no magnetic 'charges' (i.e. monopoles are not known to exist), ... so the divergence of the magnetic field is zero, the "north" and "south" poles "canceling out".
Since photons, quantized electromagnetic field, imply both electric and magnetic components,... one cannot state the release of a photon from an electron in those terms (as a div),.... not to mention there really is no electron surface per say,... in any case no one knows about the electron apart from observation, and we can't observer it before it releases a photon of energy!
johannfprins seems to think that metaphysical statements are being made there wrt the use of "particle" of light terminology,... all the while making clear his metaphysical belief in waves existing independent of observation!
This is why there is the wave/particle duality,... we can't observe directly the actual entity we call electron or photon,... so its form (as I mentioned above) is dependent upon experimental arrangement and conceptual circumstance.
How in God's name can such a "belief" be metaphysics?!
Anybody who believes that waves cannot exist independent of observation actually believes in metaphysics and is also a superstitious person. What can be more metaphysical BS than to believe that nothing exists unless it is observed? A person who believes this should be locked up in the Cuckoo's nest.
That a measurement, and thus an interaction with what IS out there can change what IS out there into something else is clearly so: To conclude from this that there is only probabilities before "observation", proves a demented mindset!
Waves change in shape and size depending upon the experimental arrangement: This means there IS a wave before "observation". No Voodoo is required!!
You are not! Noumenon is the 'mindless" idiot in this case.
A light wave cannot be stationary when it travels through space with a speed c; since there is no inertial reference frame within which it can be stationary. But a light-wave can be trapped by boundary conditions to form a stationary wave; for example, within a laser cavity. Its EM energy is then REST MASS. It thus becomes a matter-wave. An electron within its inertial reference frame is a stationary light-wave: The boundary conditions which trap this EM energy manifest as gravity around the electron.
Thus the mass of the electron is stationary light energy within a volume defined by gravity. There is NO EM energy outside the electron's volume. It is thus absurd to claim that there is an electric-field energy in space around a solitary electron; as is assumed in QED, which is then "renormalized" away!. This electric-field doses not exist!
No one I know thinks that. Of course there is reality independent of observation,... its just that the act of observation, conceptually changes the form in which the underlying reality can be known.
That is all that is being said here,... that the form wave or particle is dependent upon an interaction,... so that it is meaningless (metaphysical in imo) to state that the underlying reality IS a wave.
It's only about probabilities once normalized, when all possibilities are taken into consideration,... so not so much "probabilities" as "amplitudes" that combine in ways dependent upon the type of entity (fermion or boson) before one squares to determine "probabilities".
That is sooooo EFFEN obvious that any MORON already knew this LOOOONG before 1900 when Planck discovered that it is impossible to have an emitter or an absorber-detector that can emit or detect LESS EM energy than h*nu. So why are you babbling superstitious NONSENSE and VOODOO? You are living in the 1500's when people believed that God does not allow you to understand how the universe functions. Wake up man: We are in then 21st Century!
BULLSHIT: If there are different probable outcomes, these are determined by the measuring apparatus NOT by a "normalized probability wave" whatever the latter BS means.
I wish you would go out and buy yourself a brain!
You're the who rejects maInstream physics here, not I.
Since Bohr Heisenberg and Born decided in 1927 that mainstream physics MUST be Voodoo, and this superstition was cemented by buffoons like Pauli, Dirac Feynman etc., it is my duty to reject it!
For God's sake stop being such a pedantic MORON; You are too stupid to contribute anything to a robust debate. Your arguments are all ad hominen! Try and think; or join Noumenon shopping for a brain! I think a transplant is urgently needed for both of you!
Or try and live without ANY BRAIN like ValeriaT is doing quite well.
CAN ONE MEASURE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES WHEN YOUR MEASURING APPARATUS DOES NOT ALLOW DIFFERENT OUTCOMES?
A simple question: YES or NO?
Well, a simple answer would be yes. If ya had two apparatuses. But then ya might have a problem with which apparatus to use first. Will the first change something for the second apparatus? If so, you might switch them. Will the new first one change something for the new second one? Oops we still have a problem.
It would have been nice if one other person in the world had thought to do that in the last 100 years. Oh they have,,,, well have them do it again. And again. And again.
I have asked Noumenon many times to tell us when an entity that passes one by is acting like a wave and when is it acting like a "particle"; but he or she is not willing to define the difference.
ValeriaT does not realize that we all know since 1905 that electromagnetic waves do NOT move within an aether! A photon is light which moves with speed c, and is thus not moving within an aether. For God's sake!
Pardon, I should have said idiotic. An idiotic answer,,,, to an idiotic question. Is that better?
Sincere? I doubt it. Otherwise ya'd be writing apologies about 20 or 30 times a day. Ya seem to be in a bad mood much more often than not.
Really! What is idiotic about the question? It is obvious that when you send in an ensemble of photons or electrons you can only get different measurements for different entities IF the measuring apparatus allows this. Anybody with common sense, which you do not have, will realize that this must be so. Have you ever had a catscan done of your empty skull?
Sincere in the case of Tausch. Morons like you Noumenon and ValeriaT deserve the grossest insults. You are just useless entities. If there were not so many morons like you around in the world I would have been in a much better mood. But I agree that I must make peace with it: God must like morons since he created so many of you!
Is that a simple question? If so the simple answer is yes.
But if it is another idiotic question, the idiotic answer is yes.
Now I have a smart, genius lever question for ya... Have you ever considered meds for your condition? Living in a hyper-excited state day-in and day-out will take years off your life.
Can you say "DELUSIONS OF GRANDIOSITY"?
You really must be more moronic than me and all the others if you let us control your moods.
With something as simple (eer, excuse me, I mean moronic) as a few words on an internet forum, I might add.
Here we see psychosis typical of the internet crank, displayed wonderfully in inability to refrain from ad hominem attacks even while accusing others of ad hominem attacks.
As he was rejected from the mainstream physics community, and now being rejected by the physics news site for amatuers,... soon he will be spit out the bottom of the porn industry still clutching his failed and irrelevant theories.
I'm thinking rejected from the human community and doesn't have a clue as to why. I'm sure he is the type of super-genius that knows it can't have anything to do with his charming self.
Actually I have explained this multiple times, and even referred to two experiments in this thread.
If an entity "passes one by" he is not in a position to say anything at all about it. He must interact with it using some classical apparatus of his design, ...using concepts borrowed from the macroscopic realm in which he lives and in which forms his intuition.
He can only arrange to observe in one of various complementary basis at a time. He can not acquire a full description of a particular aspect of the quantum entity without observing it in the conjugate basis as well....
Our minds have not evolved to order 'quantum experience', so we don't have the intellectual faculties, or conceptual framework, that will encapsulate full quantum reality, in singular intuitive concepts like that.
The salient lesson of the Copenhagen interpretation was that the non-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics is an epistemological issue, and not one of physical theory.
No Zeph, YOU can imagine it like the protosimplex,,,, I don't even know what a protosimplex means. Does it have anything to do with transverse water waves traveling at super-luminarial speeds?
Oh, yeah,,,, it IS a pretty picture, I would hang in it on my wall.
Aren't just being a little hyperbolic in calling it a theory?
After all the many posts ya've made here, they still don't know about it? How can that be?
You mean to tell me that I already had enough when I finished fluid mechanics? Quantum Mechanics was a waste of my time? Now you tell me.
compressed supercritical energy density ultrasound quantum vacuum,,,, Zeph, that might be a record for ya,,, the most non-connected jargon in one sentence yet.
With compare to Heim's theory, the string theory doesn't lead into any testable predictions - so it's merely just a natural Vedian philosophy, only dressed into pile of math. It's predictability and comprehensibility is roughly corresponding the mysticism of natural philosophers. With compare to it, Heim's theory provides robust numbers and it was converted into computer programs already.
I can see why you would wish it so,,,, it explains all those aether waves on the transverse water waves with a flat surface moving with superluminal speed in the vacuum. Heim does indeed predict that. No question about it.
Oops, I left out the dense vacuum,,, put that in there too.
Prof. Burkhard Heim was a first guy, who constructed the theory of elementary particles and gravity independently to existing theories from scratch. Because his theory works pretty well in most of important aspects, we should understand first, why/how his theory is working so well.
Move forward to aether, does forward mean something different in the Czech Republic than it does in North Carolina?
Silly me, I had thought that was exactly what were doing.
As opposed to using your protosimplex pictures?
It's working so well that everyone is using it?
Passes you by means it follows a path and a path can be measured. So I ask you again: When is this entity following this path acting like a "particle" and when is it acting like a wave?
So?
What complementary basis? He only lives in a SINGLE world: What is complementary to it? You are insane you know!
BS and gobbledegook! But the latter is, of course your forte
Wrong! "Identical" has nothing to do with it. Argon atoms are identical and the statistics of a macro-state of argon (a argon-gas)is Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics.
The so-called "statistics" only changes when the "particles" are "indistinguishable". The latter is NOT the same as "identical". Indistinguishable means that within the Macro-state formed by these "identical particles", these "particles" are NOT separate entities anymore. If they remain separate entities, they will follow Boltzmann statistics: Not Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics.
When the latter statistics apply, the macro-state does NOT exist of separate entities: It is a single continuous field (wave) which has formed from smaller entities each of which is also a single continuous field (wave). There are NO separate "particles" within such a macro-state. This is why quantum field theory is hogwash.
I answered this question already, why do you continue to ask it? The phrase "Passes you by" is not experimentally meaningful. You must interact with the entity, which then takes a form that is in fundamental ways dependent upon the experimental arrangement.
My apologies, I thought you were familiar with the Hilbert Space formulation of qm, since you so obstinately reject aspects of it, and tried to confine my philosophical musing within that framework.
There is an analogy with vector space in that the wavefunction can be represented as a linear combination of all possible observables, each of which is taken as a basis ("axis") in Hilbert Space. The Momentum space representation, has a Fourier transform space (i.e. interchanging coefficients and basis), where its conjugate variable, Position is represented. If a given apparatus is designed to measure precisely its momentum, this precludes knowing anything about its position.
This would have been a good post if you had only left off the last sentence!
Nonsense! If you have two coherent waves, each a different entity, and you coherently superpose them you have a single coherent wave afterwards. What the HELL has this got to do with "information".
To know that it passes you by you must measure or observe the path: Or do YOU believe this is NOT an interaction? So I am asking you again to answer the question! When an entity passes you by, is it "acting" as a "particle" or as a wave? Stop posting nonsense claptrap!
I am more familiar with it than you will ever be even if you have another million lifetimes!
I believe in PHYSICS NOT in mathematical constructs; no matter how useful!
An assumption that has NEVER been proved experimentally anywhere! Any function can be represented in terms of infinite sets of basis-functions which have no physical meaning or reality!
BULLSHIT! This violates Galileo's principle of inertia which is the MOST fundamental law in physics!
Why? If a macro-wave is a continuous entity without being simultaneously a statistical ensemble of separate "particles", as is accepted in Quantum Field Theory, QFT MUST be hogwash! It is simple common sense!
You have proved OVER and OVER and OVER again on this forum that you cannot even understand Kindergarten physics. Galileo's inertia is THE MOST important concept in physics and this demands that the position and momentum of ANY entity, MUST manifest simultaneously with 100% accuracy. Or else ALL equations in physics will be wrong! Also Schroedinger's equation.
I'm being truthful and not my usually smarty alex self when I tell ya,,, Zeph I would much rather read what ya post than that johan misanthrope.
Bullshit as usual. That a wave has a spread in position x and k has been known LOOONG before Heisenberg was born! This has nothing to do with the position and momentum of an entity with a center-of-mass. Heisenberg's father told him he was too stupid to be a physicist. He should have listened!
Willie Wien agreed and wanted to fail him when he did his doctorate: What a pity that this did not happen!
The video CLEARLY shows that the energy-distribution of each photon-wave (i.e. its dynamic mass-distribution) has a center-of-mass which at ANY instant in time has NO UNCERTAINTY in its position, neither in its momentum. Your video proves my point with 100% clarity.
Don't forget, the quantum mechanics is about physics of observable indeterminism, not about physics of hypothetical determinism, which may - or may not - exist behind all of it. It describes what we will really observe - not what we could think about it: which makes whole this theory experimentally testable with compare to your speculations.
There are NO density changes in space-time as such. You can have a fluctuation (delta)E in the energy of a wave for a time (delta)t when the wave resonates: But this has NOTHING to do with space time: Which space-time? If you mean Minkowski's space-time: It does not exist since the coordinates x,y,z and ict are not linearly independent as the coordinates of a four-dimensional space MUST ALWAYS be!
Give me an example please. As far as I know observable effects caused by quantum fluctuations have NOTHING in common with indeterminism being built into the laws of nature.
AWT only exists within your demented mind!
A moving electron is a wave and therefore this picture is nothing strange since a moving wave undulates. It has nothing to do with quantum fluctuations in space-time.
When you Lorentz-transform a stationary electron so that it moves past, the Lorentz-transformation elongates the electron and in addition causes a phase angle along its length (giving a time-change along its length; as is present within in any coherent wave) This change in phase-angle DEFINES the de Broglie wavelength.
Einstein missed this in 1905, since he incorrectly derived length-contraction of a moving rod.
I direct you to the following:
- Aspect Experiments 1981-82
- Grangier et al, 1986
- Anything published by Zeilinger
- The book "The Quantum Challenge" is a great introduction for people who are not well versed in physics (read: you) to the EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of quantum mechanical concepts including wave particle duality.
You should probably also look up a book on Optics and Electromagnetic waves, because your knowledge of the classical picture of light is laughable.
Now go sit in a corner and start reading, you're embarrassing everyone.
I am well versed in all the literature that you are recommending. Not in one of these experiments is there ANY proof of wave-particle duality whatsoever. They can all be simply explained and modeled in terms of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves: A subject in which I am extremely well-versed. The results measured by Aspect, Grangier and Zeilinger are exactly what one expects how a wave will react when you change its boundary conditions.
"Dere ist NOT a condratiction in tere!"
The Einstein quote about telegraphs and cats and radio is knocking around in my head...
They will first have to find a material that emits a single EM wave-entity with energy n*h*(nu) where n is 3, etc. A measurement at one of the stations will then instantaneously correlate with the states of the other part of the wave.
You can, of course, send a single photon wave (n=1) to different stations, but once you make a measurement it collapses to be only observed at one of these detectors. This is so because it is physically impossible to emit or absorb a coherent EM-wave which has less energy than h*(nu). There are NO "particles" involved; also not in the case of an electron-wave.
de Broglie's wavelength of an electron results from the Lorentz transformation. If Einstein did not incorrectly derive "length-contraction" he could have predicted this wavelength in 1905.
Seems to me there should be no problem adding 2 or 3 more isolated photons, sunchronize their watches - and see what happens...
Of course, I'm just speculating here...
In essence correct: In summary my deduction is that our universe (and most probably outside also) consists of electromagnetic energy. Thus any object, be it a light wave, or an object with rest mass following a linear path with constant speed past you, is a coherent electromagnetic wave. One can derive this directly from Maxwell's equations (plus the Special Theory of Relativity which is also a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations). A moving electron is thus a coherent EM-wave that moves with a speed v less than the speed of light and therefore has a de Broglie wavelength. As I have posted before: If Einstein did not violate his own postulate of the constancy of the speed of light by deriving "length contraction", he would have found that any entity with mass (for example a meter stick which he used) elongates and in this process acquires a de Broglie wavelength.
I call it hogwash because it is based on the Voodoo concepts of "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity".
Not the same concept! An existing wave can have a quantum fluctuation in its energy (delta)E for a limited time (delta)t. This fluctuation will not occur in the "vacuum" if the wave does not exist. Such a fluctuation IS NOT a "virtual particle". Such a fluctuation can allow a wave-entity to move from one position to another without generating kinetic-energy that has to be dissipated. This happens when "tunneling" occurs through an insulating layer: The energy fluctuation allows the "electron" to have enough kinetic energy for a limited time to scale the energy barrier. The explanation in text books that tunneling occurs by motion through the insulating barrier is wrong, since it violates the conservation of ener
I can see why you could come to this conclusion, and commend you on thinking about the problem without shooting from the hip. That is why your posts are usually good!
However, as outlined above, my theory, although also using (delta)E*(delta)t, has nothing to do with "virtual particles". It has to do with resonance-interactions between localized waves when they are near enough to one another so that an EXISTING localized wave can gain enough energy (delta)E to replace the next localized wave within the allowed time (delta)t, which then moves on to replace the next wave etc. The kinetic-energy for each motion of a charge-carrier does not remain behind to be dissipated, and therefore charge is conveyed without encountering any electrical resistance. This motion does not mandate that the charge-carriers must be bosons.
I hope this is now clear?
If they did it on isolated photons, they would not measure ANY entanglement. The "two-photon" wave is a SINGLE coherent entity in its own right which is in immediate contact with itself no matter what volume it occupies. If you do a measurement on one side, to measure the spin for a single photon, the SINGLE "two-photon" wave disentangles into two SEPARATE photons. But since just before disentanglement the SINGLE "two-photon" wave is in immediate contact with itself, the two photons which disentangle must correlate their spins. After you have disentangled them, a measurement one one photon will not affect the other one.
Who has said this? Correct!
AG! ValeriaT, Natello, AKAK! Stop posting KAK!! You might be young, but having been born a moron your youth cannot change this fact!
Who has said this?
On first look, I thought you did. However on closer inspection, I think you were saying it would require as many "single" photons (collected together to create a "wave")as monitering stations in order to make them all LOOK like they were entangled. Electro-magnetism is the boundary setting mechanic by which they collect to become that new single wave. THus making a single photon the smallest possible parsing of whatever energy that we can "see". Meaning there has to be a new seperate constant to control THAT... Leading me to the deduction that complete scientific examination of our current "locality" is the only way to determine that. And so on...
Leading us back to numbers - the only way our little Phi minds can make sense of it all.
Interesting loop...
Numbers help but a working brain with enough synapses is more important! Such a pity that most modern theoretical physicists are walking around with empty craniums; and wasting billions of dollars searching for "particles" which cannot do what they claim that they are doing!
No one likes the inherent uncertainty at small scales. However we have yet to show that it isn't a reality. No experiment has ever beaten the uncertainty limit (one could argue that this is a technological issue, but LIGO is currently approaching the uncertainty limit and they are finding ways to "trick" it).
The problem with internet "theoretical physicists" is that they are touting their theories on forums. Go publish if you have some breakthrough. The mere fact that you discuss your theory on forums instead of publishing is worrying.
And no, there is no conspiracy trying to uphold the current state of physics, if science is good at one thing it is accepting that it is wrong.
The most scared principle in physics is that any model which "works" can be proved not to be correct tomorrow (remember epicycles?). If you do not accept this GOLDEN RULE you should get the hell out of physics and stop sabotaging new paradigm shifts!
By choosing other renormalisation-routes different values can be calculated for the anomalous magnetic moment. Raping math in order to get the result you want, is NOT PHYSICS!
Why do you not first prove that it IS a reality. To date this has NEVER been done!
LIGO is like CERN a massive waste of taxpayers money! At least CERN is more obviously a circus since it has the biggest ring in the world and the highest density of clowns in one location.
The biggest LIE EVER: History proves that only a demented FOOL will believe this. Even in the time of Newton this was not totally true!
BRAVO! For once I agree with you!
Have you even heard of the scientific method? "Proof" is an impossibility in science. That is the nature of the beast. There is only "well this works right now and explains what happens in our experiments".
Only a fool would believe that we would be where we are in any scientific field if the community at large could not accept being shown that something is wrong. There may be the occasional person who gets too connected to their own personal work, but by and large (as history has shown us well) the entire community will always allow for new discovery. Science is based on falsifiable statements. We try to falsify them, then accept when they have been shown that they are wrong and move on.
Ad hominem is the sign of a weak argument. I accept what is currently working, no more no less. There is no imposition. Our experiments (the ones you claim familiarity with) are showing me that we have been doing a pretty good job. When it is proven wrong (note the when, not if) I will gladly move along and learn the new physics. I surely don't want to believe quantum mechanics, classical mechanics is so much more my world.
I await your papers on arxiv. Quoting Galileo vs the Church as your excuse for not publishing anything is pretty bad reasoning. David Bohm published his work challenging quantum mechanics and is still to this day celebrated for it
I think you have missed the fact the the physicists of old that you claim were dumb and totally comfortable with sweeping infinities under the rug were the most outspoken about the issue that was renormalization. However it was later put on actual firm mathematical footing (I believe this was done by Dyson). Please cite the other methods of calculating the anomalous magnetic moment to within 10 significant figures, I'd be interested in reading.
This still happened sporadically from Newton until about at the end of the 19th century. Since 1927 this practice became very rare indeed. That is why at present theoretical physics is in a Voodoo morass based on concepts like "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity" for which there is no experimental evidence.
You state:
And then you state:
If you cannot "prove" it works, how the BLOODY HELL can you claim that "If something works it works"?
You are just as muddled in your thinking and logic as Noumenon, who claims that a person who who does not want to accept irrationality in physics is practicing "metaphysics". Are you sure you are not Noumenon who is stubbornly defending the accepted dogma and refusing to answer questions with logic?
Your style and lack of intelligence is very much the same!
Where was my argument ad hominem?
Sorry to tell you that it is NOT working since it is not based on rational mathematics.
Name them please! And please do not name the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron: It is obtained in QED by fudging fields which do not even exist. For example, there is NO experimental proof that there exists an electric field-energy around the charge of a solitary electron!
If you want to believe that QFT is "doing a pretty good job" it is your right to be a stupid fool!
It has NEVER been proven right or wrong by any falsifiable experiment yet! I do not think such experiments are even possible! In fact QFT perfectly fits Pauli's saying: "It is not even wrong!"
I decided not to post on arxiv anymore since it is obviously a sop behind which the mainstream idiots hide in order to censor new ideas in physics.
I am not quoting the case of Galileao "for not publishing" I am quoting them to show that we are back in those times where it has become impossible to get new ideas published in the so-called "mainstream peer reviewed journals". I have irrefutable proof that this is so.
I have his book and I have also written two books: BUT you are typically a person who jumps into a discussion with prejudice without first doing your bloody homework.
You are a bigot and a fool!
Another lie! Dyson just found a way to make the fudging of mathematics more palatable: Just like 'tHooft and Veltman expanded on it later. It is all bullshit mathematics!
It is impossible to cite these since the mainstream "peer reviewed" physics journals do not allow such heresies to be published. But maybe you can start with Chris Oakley who received his PhD in QFT, and who (I now believe) works in a post office because he tried to publish his calculations which prove that "renormalization" is bullshit!
http://www.cgoakl...dex.html
Correct! When watching a circus you do not mind irrationality! But not in science please! CERN should be closed down. It is a massive waste of public money to chase after the hallucinations of mentally disturbed people!
I don't need to prove that something works to see it working. Maybe I slipped in trying to speak colloquially. "Something works" means simply that if I make a calculation and then perform an experiment, the two results match to a reasonable degree of uncertainty.
I don't know how to respond to this. You choose to clearly ignore evidence so as to prove your point. I have already cited experiments to you that are very basic in the foundations of quantum mechanics. The theory in its entirely led to the predictions those experiments tested.
One can't have a discussion with someone who just resorts to ad hominem and syntactical critique instead of the meat of the point.
Good day :)
You do not consider this as "proof"? You are slipping because you are just plain dumb!
Which evidence?
You have not. Is it necessary to blatantly lie to make your point?
Bullshit! As Einstein stated it takes only one small fact to prove that a theory is wrong!
I agree: That is why it is impossible to discuss anything with you!
My God! This is exactly what YOU are doing. I am thus going to ask you to prove experimentally the following which you obviously accept without any experimental verification to date:
1. Give me the experiment that proves (with the possibility of falsification) that the Higgs boson gives "other "particles" their mass.
2. Give me experiment that proves (with the possibility of falsification) that there is an electric field-energy in free space around the charge of a solitary electron.
Waves are fields. A flowing fluid is a field. The vector (and tensor) calculus of fields use the same operators and mathematics. So there are similarities math.-wise. But this does not mean that the field that models an electron-wave is physically in all respects the same as the field that models fluid mechanics.
You're kidding, right? Assuming that ya aren't, the answer is no.
I thought ya were some kind of genius who makes Einstein and Feynman look like dolts,,,,
The only similarity in the maths are the fact ya might stick 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and my personal favorite, 9 in there somewhere,,,,
Ya would do any contortion possible to try to get people to jump on your "there is no particle" wagon.
NOTE: I said IN SPACE AROUND the electron. If there were such a field one would have been justified to call an electron a "point-particle" as is stupidly done in QFT.
This does not mean that there is not any EM field-energy involved. This energy is a stationary EM-wave within a localized volume that contains this EM energy, just like a perfectly reflecting laser cavity does. This trapped EM-energy gives the rest-mass energy of the electron. Therefore the electron is not a particle but an EM wave which is stationary within its own inertial reference frame (IRF), AND moves with a dBroglie wavelength within the other IRF's!
The field around a stationary electron is obviously, and must obviously be gravity, and it is probably gravity which supplies the boundary conditions that keeps the trapped EM field stationary.
Quoting Einstein 1952:
" The conviction prevails that the experimentally assured duality of nature (corpuscular and wave structure) can be realized ONLY by a weakening of the concept of reality. I think that such a far-reaching renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge, and that one should NOT desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory."
In addition we now know that entanglement proves that two photons (or electrons) CANNOT be separate corpuscular entities which has to communicate with the speed of light: This further supports Einstein's assertion above!
L=(gamma)*(2R)
And it also gives a change in time T along the length L, given by:
T=(v/c^2)*L
These relationships are valid at any SINGLE instant in time. There is only one entity that can at the same instant in time have a definite length L and a time-difference across it: This entity is a moving coherent wave having a change in phase angle along the direction it is moving along.
For n wavelengths (lam) and frequency (nu) one has that:
n=L/(lam) AND
T=n/(nu)
Combining these equations:
(lam)*(nu)=(c^2)/v=(m*c^2)/(m*v)
where m is the total mass of the steel ball. Setting m*c^2=h*(nu):
(lam)=h/(m*v)=h/p !!!
The moving steel ball is a coherent wave having a dBroglie wavelength. Note this result is valid for a body of any size: From an electron to Jupiter!
I'll consider it as long as I can call it a particle. A particle larger than an electron, but not as large as Jupiter.
Now wait just a minute here,,,, on the other thread of comments, the Einstein's Theory of Everything, ya were singing the praises of the guy who told us that there was no such thing as gravity. (He wasn't able to tell much more than that, "there is no gravity", but he was sure of that much. Ya did pat him on the head for it.)
Now over here ya're throwing in all this gravity nonsense. Make up your mind Sir.
What is according to YOU the cut-off radius?
Did you find anything wrong with the mathematics? Probably NOT because YOU are too stupid to even understand Kindergarten arithmetic. If you want to criticize PLEASE do it in terms of the physics and a associated mathematics.
I have used the Lorentz-transformation, which all physicists accept is correct, to prove that a steel ball (or any other ball) WITH ANY RADIUS (so it can even be a black hole) is a coherent wave when it moves past an observer. Prove me wrong in terms of logic and mathematics!
Only a certifiable complete MORON like you will make this deduction: I have stated very clearly that ONLY if there is an electric-field-energy filling all space right up to infinity,around an electron can the actual electron be a point=particle. In fact this is exactly what the QFT theorists also argue! Stop being such an arrogant idiot and fool!
YOU are the biggest schizophrenic, psychopathic liar in the universe: Where did I defend the physics of this guy: I ma not able to do this before I have read what he has written. I am not a criminal who jumps to conclusions before having all the facts; like you are doing!
I did not: I only expressed sympathy with him that he stumbled across a piece of stinking excrement like you!
According to me, it would depend upon what attributes of it's behavior I was observing or describing. The actual radius in not something I consider.
May I call a steel ball a particle? If ya will permit me to call it a particle sometimes, I'll meet ya half-way and admit there are times when the said steel ball are better modeled as a wave.
Bullshit; as you usually post. According to the history of physics a "particle" is an entity which does not have a wavelength and is therefore NOT a wave-field. Only a moron like YOU will call a wave-field, even a stationary wave, which is also determined by a wavelength a "particle".
More of that scientific jargon, eh?
Well any way, he is using YOU, by name, by address, specifically as an endorsement in review comments. He has even quoted ya as supporting his work. He even listed all your wondrous accomplishments to bolster your ringing endorsement of his theory. (Ya know, his theory of expanding matter with gravity being a fiction.)
After ya read his comments in the review section of his "book" at Amazon, ya might want to demote me to 2nd biggest.
Considering I'm in my 50's and never been even questioned by the police, I'm either a master-criminal, or YOUR "conclusions" are jumping about frantically.
Where? I have not seen this! If he quoted my work as any scientist quotes another scientist when he argues his case, I have no problem even when I disagree with his deduction. If, however, he quotes me as if I have endorsed his work without ever having read it; that is another matter.
Since I have found YOU, Q-Star a pathological liar which is so bad that it can be called criminality, I would first like to see proof of what you are claiming above!
Only a MORON like you will reach this deduction! If you have ANY brains in your hollow (or is it bone-filled skull) you will know thar I do NOT agree with the Voodoo concept of "wave-particle" duality! Thus, the point I make is that there is NOT a charged "particle" with an electric energy-field around it stretching to infinity; and there is NO experiment that can prove that there is such a "particle".
I do have a problem with that since, although nobody has ever defined what a "particle" is, we know for sure what is NOT: It is NOT an entity with a wavelength. And since the Lorentz transformation proves that EVERY entity MUST have a wavelength there are NO "PARTICLES" whatsoever in nature!
Well I'm not Amazon, so asking me for proof is not very astute scientific inquiry. Maybe ya should stroll over to the Amazon site and read it for ya self.
Pssst, might I offer ya some tips on scientific research? Of course it's not a problem, I'd be glad to help ya.
Okeee Dokeee,
Google: Amazon. Click on any of the dozen hits that comes back, any of the hundred or so at the top will get ya there.
Ya might notice a thingy at the top which is a search box. Yes, that's it,,, now type in "The Situation With Gravity, Reg Mundy". Now push the "enter" button (or return button.)
Ya will find your endorsement in the comments section of the bad review.
That wasn't hard, was it? Next time ya are on your own for the proof.
By the By: How much time in the gaol am looking forward to for my criminal shenanigans?
Sir I commend ya. And congratulate ya on your forthcoming Nobel. Ya are the first (and only) person in the history of persons to have proved a negative.
No Sir, we'll just skip over the verifying and falsifying, and get right to the proving. (And ya call yourself a person who is picky about using scientifically singular definitions in pontifications on science and stupid people.)
By the By: Where does this Lorentz fellow come down on the Pink Unicorn question? I suppose his proof is that they are actually fields, and not particles (unless they have a Leprechaun in Green Top Hat and Tails riding on it, then it is a dual particle & wave.)
Thanks: At least you have posted something useful: Which is totally out of character for you. I needed the information since you are such a blatant, pathological liar that I am not willing to waste my time independently researching your claims.
I hope at least life: Death by legal injection (slow hanging is even better) will the best for the future of physics and thus for humankind!
If you were not such an idiot, you might have been funny: However, you are not!
Did you say you are in your 50's? I would think you are barely 15 years old: A typical teenager who are on dope!
Sir, I know ya are a smart fellow, so I beg ya, will ya please post some smarter insults to me. Ya keep telling us how smart ya are, and dumb we are, so I know ya can do better.
I mean really?
Stink Breath?
Slime?
Pathological?
Criminal?
Rapist?
Excrement?
Moron (ad nausium)
Idiot (ad nausium)
Stupid (ad infinitum)
To be sure someone as smart as ya can give us "genius" level insults. Just as I helped with that Amazon thingy, I'd be glad to help find a wider variety of insults to use, and smarter.
One of the truly stupid people, almost as stupid as ya keep saying I am, came up with "oafishness" the other day. Ya can do at least as good as that. Right?
Now don't reply right away, spend some time thinking about some better insults.
I am just judging you on your posts which have NOTHING to do with physics: Probably because you are far too stupid to argue physics and mathematics. All you are trying to do is to be a smart-ass like a delinquent teenager of about 15.
You will note that I have never insulted people who are not patronizing, insulting my knowledge, and who are really interested to argue physics. You are not such a person.
Yes I will appreciate more insults since there are not enough insults in this world to describe your sick mentality! Only a criminal will hide behind anonymity and post the insults you are posting. A person who is not a criminal and with self respect will not act in this manner.
NO, I do note is that YOU are insulting & patronizing.
Which is anyone who has the temerity to disagree with ya.
Only people who are stupid, fools, idiots, morons, brain dead, or ignorant are the ones ya choose to argue physics with,,, I wonder how many ways that might interpreted? Is there a pattern? Especially when only one out 100 of your posts has someone agree with ya.
I thought ya said ya were smart? Nay, genius on the level of Einstein & above the level of Heisenberg or Feynman? Maybe it is your charming personality that drew my attention? Maybe ya began a conversation with me with "idiot", "moron" or "stupid"?? All three in one reply???
If ya aren't smart enough to understand what I wrote above. Let me dumb it down so ya won't get confused,,,
I made one comment to another poster, that didn't even involve ya,,, YOU SAW FIT TO JUMP IN WITH "STUPID", "IDIOT" AND "MORON" RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.
Sir, ya may not like my attention, but ya went out of your way to attract it. Simple, eh? Even a genius like ya should understand it.
I might not be smart, but I have integrity which you will never have. I will NEVER EVER criticize or judge any person from a position of anonymity since this is the trademark of a criminal mind; like yours! Obviously it does not worry you and that is why this world will be better off if you get then death penalty. In fact this should be applied to all people who hide behind anonymity when the judge other people. But, of course, a scumbag like you will never understand this!
NO insult is, nor all insults in the universe are, sufficient to expose how despicable you really are!
You see what a blatant distorter of then truth you are? You are now intimating that you made no comments on my posts until you "innocently" made a comment on a post that does not concern me: And then, my oh my, I stepped in to insult little "innocent" you. You are the most despicable cretin in the universe you know. I only stepped in since I have been a constant victim of your invective before you commented on the post "that did not involve me".
Where did I do this. Stop being such a blatant and pathological liar: And please stop using teenager slang! You are not funny.
I realize ya are an old man, angry old man, but surely ya can remember butting into a "conversation" I was having with one "rubberman" about two, maybe three months ago? Probably not, since 9 out of 10 of your posts contain "idiot", "moron", and/or "stupid" in them.
I just told ya, about two or three months ago.
What teenager slang?
From your perspective I'd think not, but still am I getting many pats on the back in my PM box. Be that as it may Sir, I'll let ya have the last word (one post). But remember me before ya "stupid", "moron" or "idiot" me in another post
At least he finally admits the primary issue here.
There ya go, Sir ya are now the smartest guy in the class,,,
WAVES, PARTICLES, OR FIELDS,,,, they are ALL only models. Some work well in this situation, some better in that. (And some that we hear too much of on this site, don't work anywhere but in the mind of modeller. Yes I'm speaking of the expanding matter, aether waves, vacuum mechanics, Electric Universe, and my least favorite, the Plasma Cosmology.)
Oops, I left the "fingers of God" theory,,,,, put that in there with the ones that won't work anywhere.
Ya are clearly too stupid to understand that ya are acting your delinquent teenager role: Please grow up! You claim you are in your fifties and have no tenure. Why does this not surprise me?
I should have completed the sentence: I might not be smart but compared to a certifiable moron like you I am a genius!
Neither is there a point-charge RIGHT? So why do they use the latter Voodoo concept in QFT?
You are really stupid if you do not know that the term "particle" has certain connotations. The most important one is that a "particle" cannot have a wavelength: If it could have had a wavelength NOBODY would have been surprised when Thomas Young showed that light diffracts.
In QFT it is assumed that a "particle" does not have a real wavelength: According to Feynman's of paths-over-history approach it has a Voodoo "probability amplitude". If you want to call a photon-wave a "particle", you are just confusing the issue, since it has been accepted that a "particle" cannot diffract (since it does not have a wavelength); while we know that a single photon can split and interfere with itself; thus proving that it is a wave.
Thank you for a civilized request which means we can stick to discussing physics. No wave can interfere to destroy itself completely.
Take for example a single coherent laser-wave moving through two slits and thus forming two lobes according to Huygens' principle: These two "separate" lobes interfere to create regions in space in which the intensity cancels, AND regions in space in which the intensity is enhanced. The total integrated intensity stays the same.
A single photon is nothing else than the lowest energy laser light-wave that can be emitted or detected. It also moves through both slits and interfere to form the intensity-distribution of a diffracted wave: However when it reaches the screen it can ONLY be detected as single entity by an atomic-sized detector: It is thus forced to collapse and is thus observed as a spot that corresponds.....
When you send many photons through, each one forms a diffracted wave-front,but each one is not detected by the same detector, of which there are billions within the screen. Each photon resonates with another detector and the resonance is the highest where the intensity of the incoming photon-wave is the highest. Thus after many photons have passed through the spots form the intensity of the diffracted photon wave which is the same for each photon.
If you try and see through which slit the photon has moved, you are changing the boundary conditions, and the two lobes collapse into a more localized wave. Since the lobes are no existing anymore, they cannot interfere and therefore the diffraction pattern is not formed.
The surprising aspect of this is that the two lobes, if not disturbed by another measurement.....
If you entangle two photons, and send the two-photon wave through the slits, the two-photon wave also form two lobes: BUT these lobes are NOT separate photon-waves; they are still part of a single coherent wave and are therefore in instantaneous contact with one another, unless another measurement forces them to disentangle. If the measurement is that of the polarization of one of the photons that disentangle, the polarization of the other photon MUST correlate since, just before disentanglement, the two photons have been a single wave-entity in immediate contact with itself.
All Zeilinger's experiments can be explained in in this strictly causal manner. Nature is NOT Voodoo!
What do you mean by "can never be complete"? What do you mean by "zero displacement". What is being displaced?
Destructive interference means that within the regions of space in which it occurs the wave-amplitudes of the two waves that interfere add to be zero. In order to maintain the conservation of energy, there are also regions in space in which the amplitudes add to increase the intensity. Thus although the wave consists of regions in space with high intensity separated by regions in space with low intensity, it is still a single coherent wave.
A sound wave is a wave moving through a medium: Lets call it the acoustic-ether. The speed of sound is caused by the restoring forces between the air molecules: That is why you talk funny when you breath helium. This also means that when you move relative to the air the speed of sound changes relative to your ear, and therefore you also hear a change in pitch!
No! We know from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that there is not an ether for light and therefore, no matter with what speed you move, the speed of light relative to your eye is the same. It is not determined by restoring forces within an ether.... continued
Not what I know of. Unless the intensity of the white light is so intense that it blinds you.
Explanation for what?
What "particle"? There are NO "PARTICLES" whatsoever! A moving photon-wave is a coherent wave: phase velocity does not feature! The same is true for an electron which is a coherent wave moving with the dBroglie wavelength: No phase velocity is involved anywhere.
hank you: Now I know what you are talking about. If you equate "displacement" to the magnitude of the wave-amplitude at a point, and two amplitudes sum to cancel and thus cause destructive interference, then there is no NET zero displacement. It is, however, still an enigmatic situation since the two waves are moving through one another and one can thus claim that the two separate, opposite amplitudes are still there since they are moving relative to one another.
Thank you: Now I know what you are talking about. If you equate "displacement" to the magnitude of the wave-amplitude at a point, and two amplitudes sum to cancel and thus cause destructive interference, then there is no NET zero displacement. It is, however, still an enigmatic situation since the two waves are moving through one another and one can thus claim that the two separate, opposite amplitudes are still there since they are moving relative to one another.
I still do not know whether I am answering your question? But yes as far as I know our eyes can only discern intensity, and if we are not color blind frequency also.
There is NO group velocity for a quantum of light energy since this light-quantum (photon) is a SINGLE FREQUENCY coherent wave that moves with the phase velocity c through space: The same for a free electron-wave which moves with speed v and the de Broglie wavelength.
Electrons only form wave-packets with group velocities WITHIN a conducting material. For this reason it is wrong to call a charge-carrier within a metal a "free electron". It is not a "free electron" since each wave-packet is a superposition of all the originally separate, valence electron-waves; and therefore the each packet must now move with a group velocity.
Laser light has a single frequency and there is NO shift in it, no matter from how far it comes. Only when the laser source moves relative to you will there be a shift in frequency owing to the EM Doppler effect.
A photon-wave is exactly the same!
In the case of sound a single frequency shifts when the source comes toward us and move away from us since the speed of the sound increases when the source comes towards us and decreases when the source moves away from us.
For light the speed of light stays the same whether the source is moving towards you and when it moves away from you. But you still have the same effect owing to the non-simultaneity of events when the Lorentz-transformation applies. For example, when the source moves away from you and emits a wave-front at time t, the wave-front only appears within your reference frame later than t. So the explanation is different but the effect is essentially the same.
As the source approaches the frequency becomes higher and when it recedes the frequency becomes lower.
This is an excellent question: What is their relative speed to one another? c, ot 2c? It is possible that the latter question has no meaning since neither electron has an inertial reference frame in which it is stationary. This indicates that there will not be any change in their frequencies.
In fact, I have for the past three months been pondering this same problem; and am still uncertain of what the answer must be! I could not find it in standard text books.
The chance is small that I will find it in standard text books since standard text books advocate time-dilation and length-contraction: Both of which are physically impossible!
ValeriaT's bullshit as usual: Even if you want to believe (like an idiot) that a photon is a "particle", the photon is a boson for which the Pauli exclusion principle is not valid. Two photons will thus move through one another WITHOUT any scattering AT ALL. Even the mentally retarded QFT theorists will tell you this!
This is the type of model that is "not even wrong" since it is impossible to devise an experiment that can either confirm or falsify it. This is a good illustration of why QFT is utter bullshit and a complete waste of money. It is nothing more that just the biggest Higgs'up EVER!
Yes, it does BUT after entanglement there are not separate entities! Only a moron will state that two separate photons are entangled. To entangle they must lose their separate existences so that they are not distinguishable anymore (after entanglement)!
Correct. In the case of an electron-positron pair this only happens when the light wave has an energy more than h*(nu)=2*m*(e0)*c^2; where m(e0) is the rest-mass energy of an electron. NOT when it has less energy as is assumed that it can happen "virtually" by the knuckleheads who formulated QFT. Like I have posted, there is NO experimental evidence possible that the latter can happen! Thus such an assumption is most probably just plain wrong!
So on this ad hominem evidence you conclude that the Pauli's Exclusion Principle is not valid for electrons? You are a fool and a certifiable idiot!
What other principle ensures that electrons follow Fermi-Dirac Statistics? I am always ready to be swayed if you can explain this in another manner, instead of just trying to be a smart-ass like Q-Star. Where are all you ass-holes coming from?
The first time I heard this anecdote I laughed so much that my dummy fell out of my mouth. That was 70 years ago. Can you not come up with something new?
Bohr's atom was a breakthrough, but once it was found that it is wrong and that the Bohr atom is unstable, they should have stopped teaching it since there are idiots like you who might think that the model is real.
Pauli was a funny guy, but was too stupid to realize that "identical" does not mean "indistinguishable". Thus it should not have been taught that identical "particles" require special statistics, given by Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein. Argon atoms are identical and they follow Boltzmann statistics.
And on top of it I cannot figure out what the hell you want to argue about. PLEASE get your brains unscrambled!
Sadly I will not be winning a noble prize any time soon it seems:(
I must say I agree that we are running into a problem of the mathematics in physics running ahead of the experimental capabilities. I once heard it said that something like string theory is a "22nd c