Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 27 May 2010 15:10 On May 27, 12:01 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 mayo, 12:54, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Learn how to read mpcboy!!!! > > Fire electrons through a double slit towards a phosphorous screen. > What Nature tells us is that the screen will show, again, an > interference pattern forms. > > So light has properties both of a wave and a particle. It shows > particle-wave duality. > So an electron has properties both of a particle and a wave. It shows > particle-wave duality. > > QM is the model which allows us to explain what we observe and also to > predict what would be observed in a different situation. > > QM is one of the most successful models in its predictive power. > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Shine light on electrons and their wave function collapses at the two slits. The wave goes back into the particle and there is no interference. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 27 May 2010 15:32 On May 27, 3:01 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 mayo, 12:54, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Learn how to read mpcboy!!!! > > Fire electrons through a double slit towards a phosphorous screen. > What Nature tells us is that the screen will show, again, an > interference pattern forms. > > So light has properties both of a wave and a particle. It shows > particle-wave duality. > So an electron has properties both of a particle and a wave. It shows > particle-wave duality. > > QM is the model which allows us to explain what we observe and also to > predict what would be observed in a different situation. > > QM is one of the most successful models in its predictive power. > > Miguel Rios The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is incorrect. As you stated in your previous post: "The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere"" That is correct. The light wave passes through both slits. Where you are incorrect is in your misunderstanding of what the 'particle' is in wave-particle duality. The 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. In a double slit experiment the wave enters and exits both slits and the 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference. You are correctly defining how the wave behaves in a double slit experiment. You are incorrectly defining how the particle behaves in a double slit experiment. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave and travels a single path.
From: mpc755 on 27 May 2010 15:34 On May 27, 3:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 27, 12:01 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 27 mayo, 12:54, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Learn how to read mpcboy!!!! > > > Fire electrons through a double slit towards a phosphorous screen. > > What Nature tells us is that the screen will show, again, an > > interference pattern forms. > > > So light has properties both of a wave and a particle. It shows > > particle-wave duality. > > So an electron has properties both of a particle and a wave. It shows > > particle-wave duality. > > > QM is the model which allows us to explain what we observe and also to > > predict what would be observed in a different situation. > > > QM is one of the most successful models in its predictive power. > > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Shine light on electrons and their wave function collapses at the two > slits. The wave goes back into the particle and there is no > interference. > > Mitch Raemsch The wave function does not collapse. There is no such thing as a wave function. Not in nature anyways. The coherence of the wave associated with the electron is destroyed when the electron is detected. A moving electron has an associated wave. A moving electron has an associated aether wave. The electron particle occupies a very small region of the associated wave and travels a single path. The associated wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference.
From: zookumar yelubandi on 27 May 2010 17:15 On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:30:29 -0400, G. L. Bradford wrote: > "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 > > ====================== If what you're saying is that the past, present, and future converge to the same point, wherein past=present=future; then I guess logically that is okay (even if trivially). Everything is determined for posterity; every time relation and every space relation is also defined for posterity. One might even say that everything exists and is frozen ... or nothing exists at all. Of course, the conundrum here is that every moment yields such a point of convergence. So how do we get from one moment to another if everything is supposedly frozen for all time? Translation? Rotation? Magic Powder? Uncle Zook
From: spudnik on 28 May 2010 22:25
A=Mcc; thank you, Beavis, and Aerosmith rock -- and where does the "pressure" come from, that squishes the aether, maethertronically, with or wiothout electrons? > Because you will understand how matter forms. It is the pressure exerted > on the aether which compresses it into matter. That is what occurs at > the '1st Stars' in the following image: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > You will understand what occurs physically in nature in terms of E=mc^2. > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. OK; you jiust don't know -- it's not even language. |