Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 27 May 2010 10:29 On May 27, 5:42 am, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...(a)yahoo.ca> wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010 03:57:38 -0400, G. L. Bradford wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:cc22f448-965e-4675-8fe5-569bdbb43527(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > > On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > >> Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > >> "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > >> the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > > - The future determining the past > > > ======================= > > > "The future determining the past": > > > You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the flat > > today. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the car. > > GLB > > What "occurs" and what "can occur" are entirely different propositions. > > You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the flat > today. Your friendly neighborhood delinquent slashes all your tires while > the sky is blinking with stars. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the ... > wait. Not wanting to damage the wheel bases, you cancel the drive and take > a walk in the yellow pages in search of a ratchet and rubber shop. Shop > gives you appointment for the next day, the new tomorrow. You cancel car > activities for the day and reschedule the drive for the new tomorrow. > > This example shows how the present (e.g. the discovery of flat tires in > the interceding interval between plan to drive and actual drive) determines > the future. But if the present determines the future, can it ever > determine the past? > > Translating the present to the further present (e.g. the putative future), > we can port the above example to a different time interval, one with > terminal points "future" and "further future". And that arrives the > question in tow, namely, what does the future determine? Can the future > ever determine the past? Or can it *only* determine a further future (e.g. > the putative far future) as evidenced in the ported example? > > A related question: where is your proof that the future can ever determine > the past, if that is indeed your assertion? > > Uncle Zook There is no proof the future determines the past. What occurs in 'delayed choice' experiments is simply the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. When both of the photon pair travel through the same double slit apparatus there are then two interference patterns created. One associated with each of the photon pair. There are two interference patterns created because the original photons momentum must be conserved. I will describe one of the photon pair as the 'up' photon and the other photon as the 'down' photon. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. One image is associated with the 'up' photons and the other image is associated with the 'down' photons. The peaks in one image correspond to the valleys in the other image. This is referred to as fringes and anti-fringes. This shows the two photons to have opposite angular momentums. Figure 5 does not show an interference pattern. Both 'up' and 'down' photons arrive at detector D3. What is actually represented in Figure 5 is a combination of Figures 3 and 4. In the article above, there are always two interference patterns created at D0. It is simply a matter of being able to distinguish one from the other. Since all of one type of photons (i.e. the 'up' photons) arrive at one detectors (i.e. D1) and all of the other type of photons (i.e. the 'down' photons) arrive at the other detector (i.e. D2) the two interference patterns at D0 are discerned. Nothing is 'delayed'. It is simply not understanding what occurs physically in nature which leads to an incorrect 'delayed choice' conclusion. Not understanding what occurs physically in nature and concluding the future determines the past is absurd nonsense.
From: mpc755 on 27 May 2010 10:57 On May 27, 10:00 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 27, 3:57 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:cc22f448-965e-4675-8fe5-569bdbb43527(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > > On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 12:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 10:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Physics is the study of what occurs physically in nature. Physics is > > > > > > the "physics of nature". > > > > > > One of the best ways to illustrate that you have no idea what you're > > > > > talking about is to use self-referential sentences like the above.. It > > > > > merely shows that you have no idea what you even mean in your own mind > > > > > what "physical" means. You can't characterize what "physical" means, > > > > > and so you end up with sentences like, "You know... physical. Physics > > > > > is about the stuff that's... physical. And about what physically > > > > > occurs. Yeah, that physical stuff." > > > > > > PD > > > > > For those who are intuitive, defining physics as the 'physics of > > > > nature' is easily understood. For you I will define it further, > > > > physics is understanding what occurs physically in nature. > > > > Ah, so let's capture that, shall we? "Self-referential sentences are > > > perfectly understandable to those who are intuitive. For those who are > > > not intuitive, uttering another self-referential statement is the only > > > recourse." > > > > Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > > > "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > > > the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > > - The future determining the past > > > ======================= > > > "The future determining the past": > > > You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the flat > > today. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the car. > > > GLB > > > ======================= > > Incorrect analogy. A correct analogy for the future determining the > past is the following. > > The slits in a double slit experiment are the length it takes the C-60 > molecule to travel in one year. The C-60 molecule enters one slit or > multiple slits today depending upon detectors being placed at the > exits to the slits one year from today. > > You are driving your car and there are two ways to arrive at your > desired destination. Both paths require traveling through a tunnel. It > will take you one year to drive through the tunnel. One year from > today, the exit to one of the tunnels will be blocked. Somehow, you > enter the correct tunnel today. Somehow, you are able to enter the > tunnel which will not have its exit blocked one year from today. No > matter how many times you enter the tunnel you are always able to > enter the tunnel which will not be blocked. > > How were you able to know which tunnel to enter? You aren't. > How is it anything other than luck that you always enter the correct > tunnel? It isn't. > > Any experiment you execute where you enter one tunnel or the other, > where it will take you one year to travel through the tunnel, and one > of the tunnel exits are block prior to you exiting, you will always > find yourself 50% of the time in the blocked tunnel. > > It is physically impossible for you to always enter the tunnel which > will not be blocked. > Not physically impossible, but statistically impossible. And we haven't even discussed how it is the C-60 molecule enters multiple slits. What occurs physically in order for the C-60 molecule to enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum? And how is a C-60 molecule able to do this depending up there being detectors at the exits to the slits, or not, one year from the time it enters the slit(s)? What is thought to occur in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule where the future determines the past is physically impossible. > To choose to believe you will always enter the tunnel which will not > be blocked is absurd nonsense. > > It is physically impossible for a C-60 molecule to enter one slit or > multiple slits depending upon there being detectors at the exits to > the slits when it gets there in the future. > > To choose to believe a C-60 molecule will enter one slit or multiple > slits depending upon their being detectors at the exits to the slits > when it gets there in the future is absurd nonsense. > > The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit because the > C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. The moving C-60 > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The aether wave > exits multiple slits and creates interference which alters the > direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule > causes decoherence of the aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) > and there is no interference.
From: paparios on 27 May 2010 12:06 On 27 mayo, 10:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: Snip continuous and repetitive mpc755 nonsense!!! The double-slit experiment demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle behavior of light and other quantum particles. A laser illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as though it were made of discrete particles, called photons. According to classical particle physics the brightness at any point should be the sum of the brightness when the right slit is blocked and the brightness when the left slit is blocked. However, it is found in experiments that unblocking both slits makes some points on the screen brighter, and other points darker. This can only be explained by the alternately additive and subtractive interference of waves, not the exclusively additive nature of particles, so we know that light must have some particle-wave duality. Any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a photon passes through destroys the interference pattern, illustrating the complementarity principle; that the light can demonstrate both particle and wave characteristics, but not both at the same time. The double slit experiment can also be performed (using different apparatus) with particles of matter such as electrons with the same results, demonstrating that they also show particle-wave duality. This is what Nature tells us. QM is the model which allows us to explain what we observe and also to predict what would be observed in a different situation. All modern electronics is based on this model, which demonstrates its usefulness and correctness. Miguel Rios
From: G. L. Bradford on 27 May 2010 12:30 "zookumar yelubandi" <zookumar(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:427sqm5kbq68.1853wdh849ev3.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Thu, 27 May 2010 03:57:38 -0400, G. L. Bradford wrote: >> "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:cc22f448-965e-4675-8fe5-569bdbb43527(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... >> On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [...] >>> Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", >>> "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in >>> the definition of "physical". Can you do that? >> >> I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: >> Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: >> >> - The future determining the past >> >> ======================= >> >> "The future determining the past": >> >> You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the >> flat >> today. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the car. >> GLB > > What "occurs" and what "can occur" are entirely different propositions. > > You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the flat > today. Your friendly neighborhood delinquent slashes all your tires while > the sky is blinking with stars. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the ... > wait. Not wanting to damage the wheel bases, you cancel the drive and > take > a walk in the yellow pages in search of a ratchet and rubber shop. Shop > gives you appointment for the next day, the new tomorrow. You cancel car > activities for the day and reschedule the drive for the new tomorrow. > > This example shows how the present (e.g. the discovery of flat tires in > the interceding interval between plan to drive and actual drive) > determines > the future. But if the present determines the future, can it ever > determine the past? > > Translating the present to the further present (e.g. the putative future), > we can port the above example to a different time interval, one with > terminal points "future" and "further future". And that arrives the > question in tow, namely, what does the future determine? Can the future > ever determine the past? Or can it *only* determine a further future > (e.g. > the putative far future) as evidenced in the ported example? > > A related question: where is your proof that the future can ever determine > the past, if that is indeed your assertion? > > Uncle Zook ====================== The future is now (cc=0). Departure point, (0). Destination point (0). Arrival point (0). "Observable universe" (-). Local starting point (local environment) of all travel, (0). Non-local points (non-local environment) of all travel, (-). Local end point (local environment) of all travel, (0). (0=0) GLB ======================
From: mpc755 on 27 May 2010 12:54
On May 27, 12:06 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 mayo, 10:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Snip continuous and repetitive mpc755 nonsense!!! > > The double-slit experiment demonstrates the inseparability of the wave > and particle behavior of light and other quantum particles. A laser > illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the > light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them. The wave > nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to > interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands > on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be > absorbed as though it were made of discrete particles, called photons. > > According to classical particle physics the brightness at any point > should be the sum of the brightness when the right slit is blocked and > the brightness when the left slit is blocked. However, it is found in > experiments that unblocking both slits makes some points on the screen > brighter, and other points darker. This can only be explained by the > alternately additive and subtractive interference of waves, not the > exclusively additive nature of particles, so we know that light must > have some particle-wave duality. > > Any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a > photon passes through destroys the interference pattern, illustrating > the complementarity principle; that the light can demonstrate both > particle and wave characteristics, but not both at the same time. > > The double slit experiment can also be performed (using different > apparatus) with particles of matter such as electrons with the same > results, demonstrating that they also show particle-wave duality. > > This is what Nature tells us. QM is the model which allows us to > explain what we observe and also to predict what would be observed in > a different situation. > All modern electronics is based on this model, which demonstrates its > usefulness and correctness. > > Miguel Rios Everything you say above is correct. Especially the part where you state, "The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere". Where you fail is when you do not make a similar statement for the particle: The particle nature of light causes the light particle to pass through a single slit. It is the combination of the wave passing through both slits and the particle passing through a single slit which causes the interference pattern. The same is true for a C-60 molecule. The wave associated with the C-60 molecule passes through multiple slits. The particle associated with the C-60 molecule passes through a single slit. The wave creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference. The moving C-60 molecule has an associated wave. The moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether wave. The moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. |