Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 26 Apr 2010 19:36 On Apr 26, 4:06 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > so, "Aether Displacement is a unified theory," deserving > of capitalization?... Correct. > well, what this is really about, > is my net-addiction, because you would otherwise not > be so God-am "productive," without the goading > of my own predeliction. > > so, let me quote from the LaRouche site's lead-article: > Max Planck began his series of lectures on thermodynamics in 1909 by > asserting that science is the systematic investigation of sense > perceptions. Our concepts of basic principles, like force, come from > those senses. The task of science "consists only in the relating of > sense perceptions, in accordance with experience, to fixed laws." > Those laws were, themselves, always brought closer and closer into > line with experience. > > But, this description was only a trap for the unsuspecting, for Planck > then made an about-face, and asserted that, "ladies and gentlemen, > this view has never contributed to any advance in physics." Relating > the sense perceptions to one another with mathematics, and pulling > logical derivations out of those relations, can be quite interesting, > but this could never, in itself, derive a new discovery of principle. > The generation of new knowledge about the universe comes from a world > different from that of sense perception, but one which the human mind > has access to. > ... > The concepts "material" and "energetic" are thus well defined. > Material is the stuff you can sense, and energetic is why you can > sense it. Energetic phenomena are generally continuous, while material > phenomena are generally discrete. Who would mistake the light emitted > from a light bulb, for the light bulb itself? > Exactly. That is why to say mass and energy are equivalent or mass and energy are the same thing or mass 'converts' to energy is absurd nonsense. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. In terms of E=mc^2, energy is a change in the state of mass. In terms of E=mc^2, energy is a change in the aether's state of displacement. In terms of E-mc^2, mass is conserved. > But, are these two concepts really so well defined?http://larouchepub.com/lym/2010/3716new_periodic_table.html > > and, have a very nice day/life!http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1929/broglie-lec...
From: mpc755 on 26 Apr 2010 22:40 On Apr 26, 1:30 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > Once again - sorry for the delay, been busy + I had problems with my news > server connections. > > I guess this 5th reply to my message is your best shot. > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Apr 14, 5:45 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a > >> > 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation > >> > are two experiments which will provide evidence of Aether > >> > Displacement. > > >> > In the image on the right here: > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > >> Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment > > >> I asked you to describe a _different_ more recent experiment presented > >> here: > > >>http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ > > >> I specifically selected that experimental setup because it more clearly > >> than the wikipedia experiment brings out the salient features of the > >> issue. > > > Double-slit interference > > > The aether wave associated with photon s exits both slits and creates > > interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels > > and an interference pattern will be detected at Ds. > > > Which-Way Marker > > > Both left and right circularly polarized photons are being detected at > > Ds and as such there is no interference pattern. There are two > > interference patterns being created at Ds. One associated with the left > > circular polarized photons and one associated with the right circular > > polarized photons. What the coincidence counts tally image shows in the > > 'Which-Way Marker' section is the cumulative result. > > In effect you are asserting that L and R photons will create differing > interference patterns? Correct. > I assume you can somehow elaborate how the aether > model supports this prediction? Execute the experiment and test for it. > BTW - I'm pretty sure this kind of simple > experiment has been done already numerous times - with a null result. Post a link to the experiment or keep your baseless assumptions to yourself. > > In addition I just can't see how you can even in principle combine (add) > two interference patterns of the form shown to get the one without the > interference? Look specifically the heights and coordinates of the side- > branches - it seems there is no way you can combine two of these to get > the 'no-interference' distribution. > That is exactly what is occurring in the experiment. What is being displayed in the 'no-interference' distribution is the sum of the 'pings'. By 'pings', I am referring to the s-photon being detected after the p- photon. Check out Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf The peaks in Figure 3 corresponds with the troughs in Figure 4. If you are just adding 'pings' then the peaks and troughs combine so there is no interference pattern. If you know there are two interference patterns being created and add peaks together between Figures 3 and 4 and add troughs together then you do get an interference pattern of the original photon. But this is not what is occurring in the link you provided. That experiment is just counting 'pings'. The 'pings' correspond to Figure 5 in the article above. > > Quantum Erasure > > > "A polarizer is placed in the p beam, oriented so that it will pass > > light that is a combination of x and y." > > > The polarizer allows for a combination of x and y light waves to pass > > through but the polarizer is only allowing certain photons to pass > > through. The pair of the photons which pass through the polarizer will > > have the same circular polarization upon exiting the quarter wave plate.. > > The pair of the photons which will have either left or right circular > > polarization, but not both, upon exiting the quarter wave plate will > > pass through the polarizer. Since only one set of circular polarized > > photons are being tallied, an interference pattern is detected at Ds. > > Sorry I can't quite understand what you are trying to say above. How > could a photon have both L and R polarization at the same time? It doesn't. It will have one or the other after interacting with the QWP. > I know > that you are saying that they are not - but why the need to state the > obvious? > Because the L or R polarized photon exiting the QWP corresponds with the photon pair which passes through the polarizer. For example, if a Left polarized photon exits the QWP then the associated photon pair either passes through the polarizer, or not. And this occurs for all Left polarized photons and their associated pair. They either all pass through the polarize, or not. > AFAICT it seems that you are claiming that only either L or R s-photons > coincide with the passing p-photons. This seems quite a remarkable > statement. It is only remarkable for those who choose to believe in absurd nonsense of 'delayed choice' and 'quantum erasers'. > There is obviously quite hard symmetry in the experiment > regarding the x, y, L and R polarizations and the 45-polarizer. Why would > a 45-degree polarizer for p-photons synch only either with L or R > polarization of the s-photons? This should be easily detected in the experiment. > One should also consider the fact that the > interference pattern without the QWP:s seem identical to the one with > them installed (only half intensity of course). You indicated above that > L and R photons will result in differing patterns to each other - why > then the situation where only one is detected looks identical to the one > without the QWPs? > Because it is half the intensity of the original interference pattern without the QWPs. Again, see Figures 3 and 4 in the line above. > Anyways: > 1) We know that the p-photon is linearly polarized in either x- or y- > direction. Which corresponds to a Left or Right polarized s-photon. > 2) We know that the s-photon is linearly polarized perpendicular to the p- > photon Which corresponds to a p-photon which passes through the polarizer, or not. > 3) We know that a 45-degree polarizer lets through half of both the x and > y s-photons Who's s-photon pair is either Left or Right polarized. > 4) As far as anyone can tell the process in 3 is genuinely random That must be due to ignorance. > 5) We know that the interference pattern at s-det appears/disappears when > the 45-polarizer in the p-photon path is inserted/removed. Due to the p-photon corresponding to a left or right polarize photon which allows for one of the two s-photon interference patterns to be determined. > 6) It can be experimentally verified that both the R and L photons are > present in equal amounts in all the s-det measurements. You have to read the experiment carefully. It reads as through all s- photons are detected. But the only ones they are plotting on the graph are those that had an associated p-photon detected. > 7) In addition to the questions I raised above about specifics of your > explanation - in general what you are insisting is an instance of a > 'local hidden variable' explanation. Local hidden variables don't work as > can be verified by experiments violating Bell's inequality. Alas, > understanding this would require some mathematics. You fall back on Bell's inequality is a crutch. You said it yourself, if there is a discrepancy between conservation of momentum and Bell's inequality then you are siding with Bell's inequality. A statement like that is absurd. The only 'hidden variable' is the fact that the photons which pass through the polarizer correspond to either the left or right circular polarized photon pair. > 8) And BTW where is the aether in your explanation? Remember that you > should use this experiment to show how the aether will be superior in > explaining these effects under discussion. You wouldn't like to give the > impression that you are pulling these explanations from thin air as you > go - right? > The fact that you choose to believe in 'delayed choice', 'quantum erasers' and 'which way' when that is incorrect and I am correctly explaining what occurs in the experiment you asked me to explain shows I am more correct. > > Delayed Erasure > > > It doesn't matter if the photon interacts with the polarizer before or > > after its pair interacts with the quarter wave plate. Only certain > > photons pass through the polarizer and this correlates to either the > > left or right circular polarized photons which exit the quarter wave > > plate. > > > Nothing is erased. Nothing is delayed. > > No need to discuss this before the previous issues are settled. > Really no need to continue this conversation at all as long as you put more faith in Bell's inequality then you do conservation of momentum.
From: spudnik on 27 Apr 2010 19:56 EPR "paradox" dysappears, simply by getting rid of the silly idea of a "photon," dumping Newton for Young et al's theory of waves, although Bell's theorem has been well-proven, otherwise. > Really no need to continue this conversation at all as long as you put > more faith in Bell's inequality then you do conservation of momentum. thus: no, no; de planes!, Boss, were not beeg eenough bombs, to knock Earth's tallest buildings into a gigantic subway that served them (according to the -a-hem- contractor who built'em .-) now, how does *anyone* explain: a) the cars that were melted in the street, below; and b) the molten metal found *weeks* later? > YOU and they are delusional. thus: are you still thinking of light as "photons with a guidewave" -- like that little cartoon, you found? thus: OMG, some dood hates Lyn!... well, find the article about actual sea-level data from tidal stations, yourself, mister Nice-guy. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall01/Tanawa/tanawa.html What Is a Torquetum? The torquetum, an analogue computer, can tell us, without long and tedious calculation, at any time of the night when planets or the Moon are visible, what their angular distance is from the Sun, or from the first point of Aries, and/or from some bright star in their vicinity. It can also tell us how much they are above or below the ecliptic. This would give us a fairly quick way to construct an almanac, with enough data to predict at least lunar eclipses, as well as occultations of bright stars or planets by the Moonthe which dramatic events ought to confirm the longitude readings obtained by using the torquetum to measure lunar distance. Rick Sanders > 148940000 km^2 Earth land area > 510072000 km^2 Earth sea area > 14000000 km^2 Antarctica area > 1.6 km Ice height thus: I dug into your wikilink, Sue; the upshot is that there is only practiceably "partial vacuum," with all kinds of waffling about "free space;" particularly laudable is: Scientists working in optical communications tend to use free space to refer to a medium with an unobstructed line of sight (often air, sometimes space). See Free-space optical communication and the What is Free Space Optical Communications?. The United States Patent Office defines free space in a number of ways. For radio and radar applications the definition is "space where the movement of energy in any direction is substantially unimpeded, such as the atmosphere, the ocean, or the earth" (Glossary in US Patent Class 342, Class Notes).[40] Another US Patent Office interpretation is Subclass 310: Communication over free space, where the definition is "a medium which is not a wire or a waveguide".[41] thus: now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder about his death at fifty-three, after dining with a manslaughterer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if you really want to get into WS's politics, find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine, "Why the British hate Shakespeare" -- if you can do so, at http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners. thus: the whole *problem* is the diagramming, which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched on paper. you simply do not need the pants, the lightcones they're made with, and the paradoxes of "looping in time" because of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, you won't be able to do *any* physics, that isn't "junkyard physics." thus: you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" than "photons," which is three things that have never been seen. Young proved that all properties of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls o'light for British academe. well, even if any large thing could be accelerated to so close to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," not "vacuum energy dynamics"). thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: Esa Riihonen on 9 May 2010 14:39 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Apr 26, 1:30 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> Once again - sorry for the delay, been busy + I had problems with my >> news server connections. >> >> I guess this 5th reply to my message is your best shot. >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> > On Apr 14, 5:45 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> > wrote: >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> > The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a >> >> > 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the >> >> > explanation are two experiments which will provide evidence of >> >> > Aether Displacement. >> >> >> > In the image on the right here: >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >> >> >> Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment >> >> >> I asked you to describe a _different_ more recent experiment >> >> presented here: >> >> >>http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ >> >> >> I specifically selected that experimental setup because it more >> >> clearly than the wikipedia experiment brings out the salient >> >> features of the issue. >> >> > Double-slit interference >> >> > The aether wave associated with photon s exits both slits and creates >> > interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels >> > and an interference pattern will be detected at Ds. >> >> > Which-Way Marker >> >> > Both left and right circularly polarized photons are being detected >> > at Ds and as such there is no interference pattern. There are two >> > interference patterns being created at Ds. One associated with the >> > left circular polarized photons and one associated with the right >> > circular polarized photons. What the coincidence counts tally image >> > shows in the 'Which-Way Marker' section is the cumulative result. >> >> In effect you are asserting that L and R photons will create differing >> interference patterns? > > Correct. Noted - see below. >> I assume you can somehow elaborate how the aether model supports this >> prediction? > > Execute the experiment and test for it. Huh? If you have (had) a theory - you would be able to give the chain of reasoning from the premises of the theory to the expected result of a specific experiment. If and when you are not able to do it, there is no logical connection between the result of the experiment and the theory - so the experiment can't neither support or disprove the theory. Once again your 'theory' proves to be totally useless. But see below. >> BTW - I'm pretty sure this kind of simple experiment has been done >> already numerous times - with a null result. > > Post a link to the experiment or keep your baseless assumptions to > yourself. This is quite basic and easy experiment, so it would be quite strange if no one would have done it. Turns out the issue was studied already almost two hundred years ago - see Arago-Fresnel laws. [0] But anyways, here is one recent experiment: http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2729 Specifically see the figure 3 on page 5. Now that the prediction of your aether theory (actually your declaration, supposedly somehow based on the theory), namely that L and R light will produce differing interference patterns, has been experimentally shown wrong we will do as any sane scientist will do: scrap the theory and start something new - right? >> In addition I just can't see how you can even in principle combine >> (add) two interference patterns of the form shown to get the one >> without the interference? Look specifically the heights and coordinates >> of the side- branches - it seems there is no way you can combine two of >> these to get the 'no-interference' distribution. Now to a different experimental setup ... > That is exactly what is occurring in the experiment. What is being > displayed in the 'no-interference' distribution is the sum of the > 'pings'. > > By 'pings', I am referring to the s-photon being detected after the p- > photon. > > Check out Figures 3 and 4 here: > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf > > The peaks in Figure 3 corresponds with the troughs in Figure 4. If you > are just adding 'pings' then the peaks and troughs combine so there is > no interference pattern. > > If you know there are two interference patterns being created and add > peaks together between Figures 3 and 4 and add troughs together then you > do get an interference pattern of the original photon. But this is not > what is occurring in the link you provided. That experiment is just > counting 'pings'. The 'pings' correspond to Figure 5 in the article > above. This is right. It also makes some sense, so I checked the original paper: http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf And the same is true even with that setup. This is of course good point to clarify and I admit that should have looked at the paper already earlier and not rely on the web page alone. But I'm afraid it still doesn't help your case as discussed below. >> > Quantum Erasure >> >> > "A polarizer is placed in the p beam, oriented so that it will pass >> > light that is a combination of x and y." >> >> > The polarizer allows for a combination of x and y light waves to pass >> > through but the polarizer is only allowing certain photons to pass >> > through. The pair of the photons which pass through the polarizer >> > will have the same circular polarization upon exiting the quarter >> > wave plate. The pair of the photons which will have either left or >> > right circular polarization, but not both, upon exiting the quarter >> > wave plate will pass through the polarizer. Since only one set of >> > circular polarized photons are being tallied, an interference pattern >> > is detected at Ds. >> >> Sorry I can't quite understand what you are trying to say above. How >> could a photon have both L and R polarization at the same time? > > It doesn't. It will have one or the other after interacting with the > QWP. OK. >> I know >> that you are saying that they are not - but why the need to state the >> obvious? >> >> > Because the L or R polarized photon exiting the QWP corresponds with the > photon pair which passes through the polarizer. > > For example, if a Left polarized photon exits the QWP then the > associated photon pair either passes through the polarizer, or not. And > this occurs for all Left polarized photons and their associated pair. > They either all pass through the polarize, or not. Responded below, see points [1] and [2]. >> AFAICT it seems that you are claiming that only either L or R s-photons >> coincide with the passing p-photons. This seems quite a remarkable >> statement. > > It is only remarkable for those who choose to believe in absurd nonsense > of 'delayed choice' and 'quantum erasers'. Actually we are discussing this setup and the interpretation of the results in the light of your aether 'theory' - no need to bring out other interpretations here. I will try to clarify why I find your explanation problematic below, points [1] and [2]. >> There is obviously quite hard symmetry in the experiment regarding the >> x, y, L and R polarizations and the 45-polarizer. Why would a 45-degree >> polarizer for p-photons synch only either with L or R polarization of >> the s-photons? > > This should be easily detected in the experiment. Once again if your theory can't predict the outcome of the experiment, it doesn't deserve to be called theory (or even a hypothesis) in the first place. The question will be discussed in points [1] and [2] below. >> One should also consider the fact that the interference pattern without >> the QWP:s seem identical to the one with them installed (only half >> intensity of course). You indicated above that L and R photons will >> result in differing patterns to each other - why then the situation >> where only one is detected looks identical to the one without the QWPs? >> >> > Because it is half the intensity of the original interference pattern > without the QWPs. Again, see Figures 3 and 4 in the line above. This is a moot question now because we have experimental proof that L and R light will produce identical diffraction patterns. >> Anyways: >> 1) We know that the p-photon is linearly polarized in either x- or y- >> direction. > > Which corresponds to a Left or Right polarized s-photon. [1] As I read this and your statements above you seem to indicate that for example p(x) photons would correspond to L(s) photons and p(y) to R(s) (or maybe it is p(x)-R(s) and p(y)-L(s), it is not clear from your text). Please clarify. See the setup and specifically the table in the web page (Which-Way Marker section). There are both L and R s-photons for either x and y p-photons. >> 2) We know that the s-photon is linearly polarized perpendicular to the >> p- photon > > Which corresponds to a p-photon which passes through the polarizer, or > not. Hmmmm ... yes - I guess (I'm not totally sure what you are trying to say here). >> 3) We know that a 45-degree polarizer lets through half of both the x >> and y s-photons > > Who's s-photon pair is either Left or Right polarized. How can that be. The p(x) has a s(y) pair that can become either s(L) or s (R) depending on the slit it goes through and similarly for p(y)-s(x) pair. See point [2] below. >> 4) As far as anyone can tell the process in 3 is genuinely random > > That must be due to ignorance. Always possible. However nobody has been able to prove otherwise. Quantum based randomness seems to pass all the randomness tests anybody has thrown at it thus far. >> 5) We know that the interference pattern at s-det appears/disappears >> when the 45-polarizer in the p-photon path is inserted/removed. > > Due to the p-photon corresponding to a left or right polarize photon > which allows for one of the two s-photon interference patterns to be > determined. See point [1] above. >> 6) It can be experimentally verified that both the R and L photons are >> present in equal amounts in all the s-det measurements. > > You have to read the experiment carefully. It reads as through all s- > photons are detected. But the only ones they are plotting on the graph > are those that had an associated p-photon detected. Certainly - but how is this in conflict to what I wrote here? >> 7) In addition to the questions I raised above about specifics of your >> explanation - in general what you are insisting is an instance of a >> 'local hidden variable' explanation. Local hidden variables don't work >> as can be verified by experiments violating Bell's inequality. Alas, >> understanding this would require some mathematics. > > You fall back on Bell's inequality is a crutch. You said it yourself, if > there is a discrepancy between conservation of momentum and Bell's > inequality then you are siding with Bell's inequality. A statement like > that is absurd. Once again you clearly demonstrate that you have not studied the Bell's inequalities or have not understood what you have read. Conservation of momentum is not the issue here (it is conserved) nor is the conservation of the total spin of the system (it is also conserved). In short what Bell did was to allow for some extra unspecified function depending on some unknown (hidden) local variable in the state function of the particles. From that he derived some inequalities that correspond to measurement of e.g., the spins of the entangled particle pair along differing orientations (0-degr, 30.degr, 45-degr ...) The experimental results however break these prediction - thus this hidden variable model was experimentally proven false. > The only 'hidden variable' is the fact that the photons which pass > through the polarizer correspond to either the left or right circular > polarized photon pair. [2] This seems to be in conflict with your statements discussed in point [1] above. Anyways here you seem to indicate that when the polarized is in one orientation (say +45-degr), only those p(x) photons will pass through whose companion s(y) photon will go through slit-1 becoming s(R). And at the same time only those p(y) photons will pass whose s(x) companion will go through slit-2 becoming s(R). And when we rotate the polarizer 90-degr the slit selections will be reversed. I really can't see how your 'theory' explains or predicts this mechanism. >> 8) And BTW where is the aether in your explanation? Remember that you >> should use this experiment to show how the aether will be superior in >> explaining these effects under discussion. You wouldn't like to give >> the impression that you are pulling these explanations from thin air as >> you go - right? >> >> > The fact that you choose to believe in 'delayed choice', 'quantum > erasers' and 'which way' when that is incorrect and I am correctly > explaining what occurs in the experiment you asked me to explain shows I > am more correct. I'm pretty sure I have not stated what my beliefs on the matter actually are. And in any case this is not a dichotomy, so disproving either of the models would not prove the other - this is a normal situation in science - your 'theory' must stand on its own feet. Plus especially considering the issues with points [0], [1] and [2] above, I'm afraid you have not explained anything thus far. >> > Delayed Erasure >> >> > It doesn't matter if the photon interacts with the polarizer before >> > or after its pair interacts with the quarter wave plate. Only certain >> > photons pass through the polarizer and this correlates to either the >> > left or right circular polarized photons which exit the quarter wave >> > plate. >> >> > Nothing is erased. Nothing is delayed. >> >> No need to discuss this before the previous issues are settled. >> >> > Really no need to continue this conversation at all as long as you put > more faith in Bell's inequality then you do conservation of momentum. As explained above (and stated already earlier) Bell's inequality and conservation of momentum are in no conflict with each other. It is of course totally up to you when to drop the case. Cheers, Esa(R) -- He is a quantum philosopher. I can't understand him and his position at the same time. - S. Morganbesser
From: mpc755 on 9 May 2010 17:11
On May 9, 2:39 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > On Apr 26, 1:30 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> Once again - sorry for the delay, been busy + I had problems with my > >> news server connections. > > >> I guess this 5th reply to my message is your best shot. > > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > On Apr 14, 5:45 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> > The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a > >> >> > 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the > >> >> > explanation are two experiments which will provide evidence of > >> >> > Aether Displacement. > > >> >> > In the image on the right here: > >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > >> >> Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment > > >> >> I asked you to describe a _different_ more recent experiment > >> >> presented here: > > >> >>http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ > > >> >> I specifically selected that experimental setup because it more > >> >> clearly than the wikipedia experiment brings out the salient > >> >> features of the issue. > > >> > Double-slit interference > > >> > The aether wave associated with photon s exits both slits and creates > >> > interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels > >> > and an interference pattern will be detected at Ds. > > >> > Which-Way Marker > > >> > Both left and right circularly polarized photons are being detected > >> > at Ds and as such there is no interference pattern. There are two > >> > interference patterns being created at Ds. One associated with the > >> > left circular polarized photons and one associated with the right > >> > circular polarized photons. What the coincidence counts tally image > >> > shows in the 'Which-Way Marker' section is the cumulative result. > > >> In effect you are asserting that L and R photons will create differing > >> interference patterns? > > > Correct. > > Noted - see below. > > >> I assume you can somehow elaborate how the aether model supports this > >> prediction? > > > Execute the experiment and test for it. > > Huh? If you have (had) a theory - you would be able to give the chain of > reasoning from the premises of the theory to the expected result of a > specific experiment. If and when you are not able to do it, there is no > logical connection between the result of the experiment and the theory - > so the experiment can't neither support or disprove the theory. Once > again your 'theory' proves to be totally useless. But see below. > Huh? So, you choose to believe in absurd nonsense of 'which way' and 'quantum erasers' and 'delayed choice' and 'virtual' particles and on and on the nonsense goes? So, you are stating it is better just to make stuff up? I am telling you what occurs in nature in the experiment you linked to. If you choose not to believe what occurs in nature then that is up to you. > >> BTW - I'm pretty sure this kind of simple experiment has been done > >> already numerous times - with a null result. > > > Post a link to the experiment or keep your baseless assumptions to > > yourself. > > This is quite basic and easy experiment, so it would be quite strange if > no one would have done it. Turns out the issue was studied already almost > two hundred years ago - see Arago-Fresnel laws. > > [0] > But anyways, here is one recent experiment:http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2729 > > Specifically see the figure 3 on page 5. > > Now that the prediction of your aether theory (actually your declaration, > supposedly somehow based on the theory), namely that L and R light will > produce differing interference patterns, has been experimentally shown > wrong we will do as any sane scientist will do: scrap the theory and start > something new - right? > http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2729 "The results of Fig. 2 seem to indicate a slight polarization dependent transversal shift. This could be traced back to a systematic beam displacement during adjustments of the Babinet compensator. The results of Fig. 3 were obtained after resolving this problem." It wasn't a problem that required fixing. The transversal shift is exactly what I predicted. > >> In addition I just can't see how you can even in principle combine > >> (add) two interference patterns of the form shown to get the one > >> without the interference? Look specifically the heights and coordinates > >> of the side- branches - it seems there is no way you can combine two of > >> these to get the 'no-interference' distribution. > > Now to a different experimental setup ... > > > That is exactly what is occurring in the experiment. What is being > > displayed in the 'no-interference' distribution is the sum of the > > 'pings'. > > > By 'pings', I am referring to the s-photon being detected after the p- > > photon. > > > Check out Figures 3 and 4 here: > >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf > > > The peaks in Figure 3 corresponds with the troughs in Figure 4. If you > > are just adding 'pings' then the peaks and troughs combine so there is > > no interference pattern. > > > If you know there are two interference patterns being created and add > > peaks together between Figures 3 and 4 and add troughs together then you > > do get an interference pattern of the original photon. But this is not > > what is occurring in the link you provided. That experiment is just > > counting 'pings'. The 'pings' correspond to Figure 5 in the article > > above. > > This is right. It also makes some sense, so I checked the original paper: > > http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf > > And the same is true even with that setup. This is of course good point > to clarify and I admit that should have looked at the paper already > earlier and not rely on the web page alone. > > But I'm afraid it still doesn't help your case as discussed below. > > >> > Quantum Erasure > > >> > "A polarizer is placed in the p beam, oriented so that it will pass > >> > light that is a combination of x and y." > > >> > The polarizer allows for a combination of x and y light waves to pass > >> > through but the polarizer is only allowing certain photons to pass > >> > through. The pair of the photons which pass through the polarizer > >> > will have the same circular polarization upon exiting the quarter > >> > wave plate. The pair of the photons which will have either left or > >> > right circular polarization, but not both, upon exiting the quarter > >> > wave plate will pass through the polarizer. Since only one set of > >> > circular polarized photons are being tallied, an interference pattern > >> > is detected at Ds. > > >> Sorry I can't quite understand what you are trying to say above. How > >> could a photon have both L and R polarization at the same time? > > > It doesn't. It will have one or the other after interacting with the > > QWP. > > OK. > > >> I know > >> that you are saying that they are not - but why the need to state the > >> obvious? > > > Because the L or R polarized photon exiting the QWP corresponds with the > > photon pair which passes through the polarizer. > > > For example, if a Left polarized photon exits the QWP then the > > associated photon pair either passes through the polarizer, or not. And > > this occurs for all Left polarized photons and their associated pair. > > They either all pass through the polarize, or not. > > Responded below, see points [1] and [2]. > > >> AFAICT it seems that you are claiming that only either L or R s-photons > >> coincide with the passing p-photons. This seems quite a remarkable > >> statement. > > > It is only remarkable for those who choose to believe in absurd nonsense > > of 'delayed choice' and 'quantum erasers'. > > Actually we are discussing this setup and the interpretation of the > results in the light of your aether 'theory' - no need to bring out other > interpretations here. I will try to clarify why I find your explanation > problematic below, points [1] and [2]. > > >> There is obviously quite hard symmetry in the experiment regarding the > >> x, y, L and R polarizations and the 45-polarizer. Why would a 45-degree > >> polarizer for p-photons synch only either with L or R polarization of > >> the s-photons? > > > This should be easily detected in the experiment. > > Once again if your theory can't predict the outcome of the experiment, it > doesn't deserve to be called theory (or even a hypothesis) in the first > place. > > The question will be discussed in points [1] and [2] below. > > >> One should also consider the fact that the interference pattern without > >> the QWP:s seem identical to the one with them installed (only half > >> intensity of course). You indicated above that L and R photons will > >> result in differing patterns to each other - why then the situation > >> where only one is detected looks identical to the one without the QWPs? > > > Because it is half the intensity of the original interference pattern > > without the QWPs. Again, see Figures 3 and 4 in the line above. > > This is a moot question now because we have experimental proof that L and > R light will produce identical diffraction patterns. > > >> Anyways: > >> 1) We know that the p-photon is linearly polarized in either x- or y- > >> direction. > > > Which corresponds to a Left or Right polarized s-photon. > > [1] > As I read this and your statements above you seem to indicate that for > example p(x) photons would correspond to L(s) photons and p(y) to R(s) > (or maybe it is p(x)-R(s) and p(y)-L(s), it is not clear from your text). > Please clarify. See the setup and specifically the table in the web page > (Which-Way Marker section). There are both L and R s-photons for either x > and y p-photons. > > >> 2) We know that the s-photon is linearly polarized perpendicular to the > >> p- photon > > > Which corresponds to a p-photon which passes through the polarizer, or > > not. > > Hmmmm ... yes - I guess (I'm not totally sure what you are trying to say > here). > > >> 3) We know that a 45-degree polarizer lets through half of both the x > >> and y s-photons > > > Who's s-photon pair is either Left or Right polarized. > > How can that be. The p(x) has a s(y) pair that can become either s(L) or s > (R) depending on the slit it goes through and similarly for p(y)-s(x) > pair. > > See point [2] below. > > >> 4) As far as anyone can tell the process in 3 is genuinely random > > > That must be due to ignorance. > > Always possible. However nobody has been able to prove otherwise. Quantum > based randomness seems to pass all the randomness tests anybody has > thrown at it thus far. > > >> 5) We know that the interference pattern at s-det appears/disappears > >> when the 45-polarizer in the p-photon path is inserted/removed. > > > Due to the p-photon corresponding to a left or right polarize photon > > which allows for one of the two s-photon interference patterns to be > > determined. > > See point [1] above. > > >> 6) It can be experimentally verified that both the R and L photons are > >> present in equal amounts in all the s-det measurements. > > > You have to read the experiment carefully. It reads as through all s- > > photons are detected. But the only ones they are plotting on the graph > > are those that had an associated p-photon detected. > > Certainly - but how is this in conflict to what I wrote here? > > >> 7) In addition to the questions I raised above about specifics of your > >> explanation - in general what you are insisting is an instance of a > >> 'local hidden variable' explanation. Local hidden variables don't work > >> as can be verified by experiments violating Bell's inequality. Alas, > >> understanding this would require some mathematics. > > > You fall back on Bell's inequality is a crutch. You said it yourself, if > > there is a discrepancy between conservation of momentum and Bell's > > inequality then you are siding with Bell's inequality. A statement like > > that is absurd. > > Once again you clearly demonstrate that you have not studied the Bell's > inequalities or have not understood what you have read. Conservation of > momentum is not the issue here (it is conserved) nor is the conservation > of the total spin of the system (it is also conserved). In short what > Bell did was to allow for some extra unspecified function depending on > some unknown (hidden) local variable in the state function of the > particles. From that he derived some inequalities that correspond to > measurement of e.g., the spins of the entangled particle pair along > differing orientations (0-degr, 30.degr, 45-degr ...) The experimental > results however break these prediction - thus this hidden variable model > was experimentally proven false. > > > The only 'hidden variable' is the fact that the photons which pass > > through the polarizer correspond to either the left or right circular > > polarized photon pair. > > [2] > This seems to be in conflict with your statements discussed in point [1] > above. Anyways here you seem to indicate that when the polarized is in > one orientation (say +45-degr), only those p(x) photons will pass through > whose companion s(y) photon will go through slit-1 becoming s(R). And at > the same time only those p(y) photons will pass whose s(x) companion will > go through slit-2 becoming s(R). And when we rotate the polarizer 90-degr > the slit selections will be reversed. > > I really can't see how your 'theory' explains or predicts this mechanism. > > >> 8) And BTW where is the aether in your explanation? Remember that you > >> should use this experiment to show how the aether will be superior in > >> explaining these effects under discussion. You wouldn't like to give > >> the impression that you are pulling these explanations from thin air as > >> you go - right? > > > The fact that you choose to believe in 'delayed choice', 'quantum > > erasers' and 'which way' when that is incorrect and I am correctly > > explaining what occurs in the experiment you asked me to explain shows I > > am more correct. > > I'm pretty sure I have not stated what my beliefs on the matter actually > are. And in any case this is not a dichotomy, so disproving either of the > models would not prove the other - this is a normal situation in science > - your 'theory' must stand on its own feet. > > Plus especially considering the issues with points [0], [1] and [2] > above, I'm afraid you have not explained anything thus far. > > >> > Delayed Erasure > > >> > It doesn't matter if the photon interacts with the polarizer before > >> > or after its pair interacts with the quarter wave plate. Only certain > >> > photons pass through the polarizer and this correlates to either the > >> > left or right circular polarized photons which exit the quarter wave > >> > plate. > > >> > Nothing is erased. Nothing is delayed. > > >> No need to discuss this before the previous issues are settled. > > > Really no need to continue this conversation at all as long as you put > > more faith in Bell's inequality then you do conservation of momentum. > > As explained above (and stated already earlier) Bell's inequality and > conservation of momentum are in no conflict with each other. > > It is of course totally up to you when to drop the case. > > Cheers, > > Esa(R) > > -- > He is a quantum philosopher. I cant understand him and his position at > the same time. > - S. Morganbesser |