Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 17 May 2010 12:47 On May 9, 2:39 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > 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? > 'Generalized Arago-Fresnel laws: The EME-flow-line description' 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. Fig. 2 and more convincingly Fig. 3 show that the interference pattern does not depend on the state of polarization of the incident laser light." Polarization dependent transversal shift is exactly what I predicted. The interference pattern depends on the state of the polarization of the incident laser light. The experimenters incorrectly adjusted the Babinet compensator to get their desired results. From the original article the article you linked to was derived from: 'Double-slit quantum eraser' http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf "Suppose that in front of each slit we place a quarter-wave plate, with the fast axis at an angle of 45° (or -45°) with respect to the photon polarization direction. Upon traversing either one of the wave plates, the photon becomes circularly polarized, and acquires a well- defined angular momentum. Supposing that the wave plate is free to rotate, it should acquire an angular momentum opposite to that of the photon, and rotate right or left, depending on the chirality of the photon." The quarter-wave plates in front of each slit cause there to be two interference patterns created at detector Ds. One associated with the right photons and one associated with the left photons. The cumulative coincidence counts of the two interference patterns results in Fig 7. "Experimentally, this can be done by placing a polarizer in the path of beam p and orientating it at +45° to select [|+>p] or at -45° to select [|->p]. The interference pattern is recovered through the coincidence detection of photons s and p. Notice that the fringes obtained in the two cases are out of phase. They are commonly called fringes and antifringes." The placement of the polarizer in the path of beam p discerns the two interference patterns created at detector Ds. Cumulative coincidence counts of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 result in Fig. 7.
From: Esa Riihonen on 18 May 2010 14:14 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On May 9, 2:39 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> > 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? >> >> Once again you constructed several (seven) answers in little over 5 hours to the same post of mine - what is the problem ADHD. I guess based on the time label this is your best reply. > 'Generalized Arago-Fresnel laws: The EME-flow-line description' > http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2729 This is a reference to the abstract of the paper - why not use the link to the full paper given above. > "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. Fig. 2 — and more > convincingly Fig. 3— show that the interference pattern does not depend > on the state of polarization of the incident laser light." > > Polarization dependent transversal shift is exactly what I predicted. I'm afraid you didn't predict any 'tranversal' shift. Actually anyone that has actually done diffraction experiments (as I have BTW) knows quite well that the transversal (or any other direction) placement of the pattern depends on the alignment of the equipment. All you have here is a minor effect due to the misalignment on top of the strong signal in first of the experiments, so minor that it can't even be seen from the picture. A small effect that is completely absent from the later experiments after the realignment. BTW I'm not sure that you noticed but these guys are actually in 'your camp' - they use the 'Bohmian' EME-flow line description of the setup. > The interference pattern depends on the state of the polarization of the > incident laser light. The experimenters incorrectly adjusted the Babinet > compensator to get their desired results. Hah. Once again, this adjustment was capable of destroying the whole effect for all the polarization states - I guess you "predicted" that also ;) > Figures 3 and 4 better are a better representation of the effect: > > 'A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser' > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf I think we have seen this reference already. The paper and the associated figures are related to the quantum erasure experiment and have nothing to do with the experimentally separate discussion whether the polarization state affects the diffraction pattern - it doesn't. I think you are quite confused and desperate. It is quite obvious at this point that your aether "theory" is nothing but hot air verbiage, and it is totally meaningless to continue this "discussion". I have a suggestion though. As you are operating under a nym you have always the option for disappearing from here for a while. You could use the saved time for actually studying physics - for a couple of years at least. After that you could come back with a new nym and avoid the most embarrassing statements like "atomic clock tick rate is affected by the aether pressure on the nucleus" and other stupidities. And for a bonus, here is a more or less clear headed and respectable challenge on the interpretation quantum erasure (at least it looks respectable to me - others more knowledgeable might know better). Before you can produce anything even remotely at that level, you have no change of having anyone to take you seriously here. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500340701639953 Over and out, Esa(R) -- If starving people will be taught to pray instead of search for food, famine would be over in a few weeks. -- Kaj Stenberg
From: mpc755 on 18 May 2010 14:47
On May 18, 2:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > 'A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser' > >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf > > I think we have seen this reference already. The paper and the associated > figures are related to the quantum erasure experiment and have nothing to > do with the experimentally separate discussion whether the polarization > state affects the diffraction pattern - it doesn't. I think you are quite > confused and desperate. > The polarization state affects the diffraction pattern. That is what the article refers to as fringes and anti-fringes. 'Double-slit quantum eraser' http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf "Suppose that in front of each slit we place a quarter-wave plate, with the fast axis at an angle of 45° (or -45°) with respect to the photon polarization direction. Upon traversing either one of the wave plates, the photon becomes circularly polarized, and acquires a well- defined angular momentum. Supposing that the wave plate is free to rotate, it should acquire an angular momentum opposite to that of the photon, and rotate right or left, depending on the chirality of the photon." The quarter-wave plates in front of each slit cause there to be two interference patterns created at detector Ds. One associated with the right photons and one associated with the left photons. The cumulative coincidence counts of the two interference patterns results in Fig 7. "Experimentally, this can be done by placing a polarizer in the path of beam p and orientating it at +45° to select [|+>p] or at -45° to select [|->p]. The interference pattern is recovered through the coincidence detection of photons s and p. Notice that the fringes obtained in the two cases are out of phase. They are commonly called fringes and antifringes." The placement of the polarizer in the path of beam p discerns the two interference patterns created at detector Ds. Cumulative coincidence counts of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 result in Fig. 7. |