Quantum theory survives its latest ordeal
in [Physics]
|
Prev: What are space and time? These are them:
Next: Quantiative Science Before Galileo, Venetian Party friend of Pope Urban -- BP's cap&trade?
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Jul 2010 21:59 Quantum theory survives its latest ordeal Triple slit experiment fails to crack quantum gravity http://physicsworld.com/cws/m/1800/17632/article/news/43275
From: bert on 23 Jul 2010 15:16 On Jul 22, 9:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Quantum theory survives its latest ordeal > Triple slit experiment fails to crack quantum gravityhttp://physicsworld.com/cws/m/1800/17632/article/news/43275 Sam A single photon Can go through a million holes at once. So is the weirdness of QM I know why however TreBert
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Jul 2010 16:25 On 7/23/10 2:16 PM, bert wrote: > On Jul 22, 9:59 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Quantum theory survives its latest ordeal >> Triple slit experiment fails to crack quantum gravityhttp://physicsworld.com/cws/m/1800/17632/article/news/43275 > > Sam A single photon Can go through a million holes at once. So is the > weirdness of QM I know why however TreBert From the article: "This experiment provides an answer by telling us that (to the accuracy achieved so far) nature is satisfied with the two-slit type of interference we already know, but does not exhibit new forms of interference involving three or more alternatives"
From: Benj on 24 Jul 2010 01:12 On Jul 22, 9:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Quantum theory survives its latest ordeal > Triple slit experiment fails to crack quantum gravityhttp://physicsworld.com/cws/m/1800/17632/article/news/43275 "Sam" you sure can pick the most inane nonsense out of the popular science press! This one takes the cake! And it comes from the hallowed hall of the American Institute of [Political] Physics as well! The article not only is filled with stupid statements but some of them totally WRONG if not utterly misleading (or should I use the media word: "spun"?). "When a beam of particles such as photons or electrons is fired at two closely spaced slits, the resulting interference pattern occurs because the particles behave like waves. The intensity of the pattern can be calculated by squaring the sum of the waves that travel through each slit. This is the consequence of Born's rule, which defines the probability that a measurement on a quantum system will yield a certain result." Do we all understand the idiocy of this statement? Particles are NOT "waves" nor do they "behave like waves". This is a total error and fabrication. Nor is the "intensity" of the pattern calculated by a "sum of waves". All of this shows a complete and utter LACK of understanding of the physics involved! A FRESHMAN student could do better! What happens is that particles are sent toward a binary mask. The particles either pass the mask or they do not. If they pass the mask they strike a screen creating a SINGLE data point. This is in NO WAY "wave behavior"! GOT IT? Nor is it an "interference pattern" as it occurs singly with EACH photon! No "waves" in sight! I'm sure they will say that they are speaking of "probability waves". And yes that is a bit better than EM waves, but just WHAT is that? Just what is the "medium" for them? There is even more "magic" in that model than in the EM model I"m suggesting. For QM "waves" start out as imaginary "probability waves" and then the "intensity" some how "collapses" down into a real particle. Now just what in hell does THAT mean? Can anyone 'explain" that mechanism? There is virtually no experimental evidence for ANY of the parts of this model except an approximately correct final answer. At least the EM model has demonstrable fields etc. Now the interesting thing occurs when we plot the DENSITY (NOT "intensity" which is a wave parameter) of data points striking the screen, that DIGITAL DENSITY somehow approximates (NOT "equals") the solution to the case where electromagnetic radiation is incident upon the "mask". Please note the "electromagnetic wave" model is continuous and differentiable! The digital particle model is NOT! It is at best piece-wise continuous and non-differentiable. The two in reality can't truly be compared. The only approximation that is of interest is when the number of particles becomes so great that the target density function begins to approximate points on the "intensity" function. The two can only truly be compared when the number of photons becomes infinite. Got it? So, what about the "Born Identity" staring Max Born instead of Matt Damon? Well it's pretty elementary (for anyone but an AIP employee) Given that the photon received density appears to follow the Electromagnetic Solution in the limit of High numbers of particles, then it is not a reach to assume that the same comparison can be made at lower densities as well. OK, I won't keep you in suspense any longer: The key feature of EM solutions is that the rule of superposition applies. Hence NO MATTER HOW MANY HOLES you put in the mask or WHAT SHAPE YOU MAKE THEM, the EM intensity you get adding up single hole patterns will be IDENTICAL with the pattern for the whole mask! And since particle densities are known to follow these EM solutions within statistical variations Born's rule is obviously true, no goofy experiments required...but hey verification is good so I won't begrudge the Austrians their experimental fun. But they are obviously chasing their own tail. QED. So the Austrians may be wandering in the physics wilderness, that's at least not as bad as the AIP publications promoting obviously erroneous physics. They are embarrassing all of physics not to mention America with their garbage. Apparently all they are really good at is censoring science. The real question here is why is "Wormley" so easily impressed with such utter scientific nonsense? This is not the sort of guy we want teaching the next generation of scientists!
From: eric gisse on 24 Jul 2010 02:27
Benj wrote: [...] > Do we all understand the idiocy of this statement? Particles are NOT > "waves" nor do they "behave like waves". Well that answers the question of whether you have any training in science or not. [snip rest] |