Two slit experiment
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: In history the fact that the moon fits over the sun was proof of God
Next: Einstein - Special Relativity - a bird's eye view
From: bert on 4 Jun 2010 19:14 On Jun 4, 11:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/3/10 1:34 PM, rick_s wrote: > > > A photon is not a little piece of dust. It is a wave packet. It has some > > length to it. It is a wave. A short wave. So? Cut it in half and you have > > two waves. Make a small enough effect and it will interfere with itself.. > > > People are sure stuck on this notion that matter is like little pieces of > > rock. It has never ever been shown to exist in that way. > > These are misunderstandings on your part, rick_s. > > Background on the Photon > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties Sam Two slit experiment proves my twin photon theory. My idea on this is knowing that the interference phenomena is the telltale sign of waves. Two photons takes away the mistory. One photon interfering with itself is crazy thinking even in the quantum realm TreBert
From: BURT on 4 Jun 2010 21:42 On Jun 4, 4:14 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 11:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/3/10 1:34 PM, rick_s wrote: > > > > A photon is not a little piece of dust. It is a wave packet. It has some > > > length to it. It is a wave. A short wave. So? Cut it in half and you have > > > two waves. Make a small enough effect and it will interfere with itself. > > > > People are sure stuck on this notion that matter is like little pieces of > > > rock. It has never ever been shown to exist in that way. > > > These are misunderstandings on your part, rick_s. > > > Background on the Photon > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties > > Sam Two slit experiment proves my twin photon theory. My idea on this > is knowing that the interference phenomena is the telltale sign of > waves. Two photons takes away the mistory. One photon interfering > with itself is crazy thinking even in the quantum realm TreBert I don't think there has been a measurement matter decaying into light. When and where should we look? That is the point. Mitch Raemsch
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Jun 2010 10:16 On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote: > > Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which > are deterministic... One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but deterministic! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Jun 2010 10:11 On 6/5/10 8:08 AM, Huang wrote: > ...because the rocks are stationary with respect to each > other...they can be regarded as being entangled. > Educate yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
From: Huang on 5 Jun 2010 20:12
On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote: > > > > > Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which > > are deterministic... > > One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but > deterministic! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent to the very concept of "number". Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem, "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing indeterminacy themselves. |