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: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 10:49 "Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aed4cfb1-92f6-4272-9ef7-2658cd388920(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 5, 8:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/5/10 7:12 PM, Huang wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> You are not making any sense, man!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > lol Sam, now you're talking like an old hippie :) > > A number is a way to distinguish various quantities, It CAN be used for that > but because the > concept of number can be applied to "anything in general" Of course it can > one could > argue that it is indeterminate No .. it isn't > as to exactly what numbers are > quantifying A number doesn't CARE what it is quantifying > unless you specify this in some particular context, You don't NEED a context .. you can work with perfectly well defined and non-indeterminate numbers > but > those particular contexts are of no use to someone who is trying to > define what numbers are We don't need to > because of course mathematicians love the > power of "generality". Mathematics doesn't care how the numbers are applied > There does seem to be a connection to indeterminacy, Its not relevant > but this is > completely ignored on philosophical grounds No .. on the grounds that it is totally irrelevant > and reasons relating more > to tradition than any sensible reason. No .. the only non-sensible person here is you .. you're talking nonsense.
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 10:50 "Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c313fcff-a94b-4711-93ed-d2318ccb4138(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 5, 9:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/5/10 9:32 PM, Huang wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 5, 8:28 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 6/5/10 7:12 PM, Huang wrote: >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> You are not making any sense, man!- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > lol Sam, now you're talking like an old hippie :) >> >> > A number is a way to distinguish various quantities, but because the >> > concept of number can be applied to "anything in general" one could >> > argue that it is indeterminate as to exactly what numbers are >> > quantifying unless you specify this in some particular context, but >> > those particular contexts are of no use to someone who is trying to >> > define what numbers are because of course mathematicians love the >> > power of "generality". >> >> > There does seem to be a connection to indeterminacy, but this is >> > completely ignored on philosophical grounds and reasons relating more >> > to tradition than any sensible reason. >> >> Mathematics is the working language of physics, Huang. If you get >> confused about the uses of mathematics in the physical sciences, >> stick with philosophy. That would make these the wrong newsgroups >> for you. >> >> -Sam- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > Working language or not, mathematics is structured reasoning based on > a certain philosophy. And the cantral "assumption" is that things > either exist or they do not - there is no middle ground. Wrong > Mathematics is predicated on these philosophical assumptions. Nope > Why would a philosopher care if a modification of mathematics is > equivalent to math ? Why would ANYONE care? > If I invent a tool (other than math) which can > successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics. No > Bohm attempted to do all of this with the concept of "be-ables". > Things which were "able to be". But it appears that he failed to push > it far enough and beables are presently little more than a curiosity. > Bohm was a victim of the mathematical monopolistic mafia. Nonsense
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 10:53 "Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bed08c31-02c7-4ef3-b050-84f602ee9ea2(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 5, 10:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 4, 5:02 pm, 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 >> >> --------------------- >> see the end of your quote: >> >> quote (a quote from your quote ) >> >> to very high precision.[19] A null result of such an experiment has >> set a limit of m≲10−14 eV.[20] >> >> Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to >> detect effects caused by the Galactic vector potential. Although the >> galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic >> field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is >> observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the >> mass term \scriptstyle\frac{1}{2} m^2 A_{\mu}A^{\mu} would affect the >> galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an >> upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10−27 eV.[21] The galactic >> vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque >> exerted on a magnetized ring.[22] Such methods were used to obtain the >> sharper upper limit of 10−18eV given by the Particle Data Group.[23] >> >> These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by >> the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent. >> [24] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the >> upper limit of m≲10−14 eV from the test of Coulomb's law is valid. >> >> ------------ >> end of quote!! >> i ddint need that quote >> i Proved that the photon has mass >> *the only mass that exist!! >> the mass of photon i suggested is >> about exp -90 Kilogram !! >> >> and energy of the real **single* photon >> about exp-70 Joule >> (based on the Plank time multiplying h !! ) >> and >> (energy /c = mass) >> ATB >> Y.Porat >> ------------------------ > > > > I'm still hoping that someone will take my thought experiment > seriously. What I said was not complicated. Nor is it in any way useful or significant > There are two rocks and they are both in motion relative to the > universe, but they are staionary with respect to each other. Assume > that they are accelerating. Call them Rock A and Rock B. Fine > For both of these rocks, they could be regarded as being in a gravity > field, or they could be regarded as acceleration through space. Or neither > Rock A > and rock B can be separated by ANY distance. Then they must be accelerating the same and/or in the same gravitational potential > If you test rock A and > find that it is accelerating then you have "spooky instantanoues > knowledge" about rock b. nothing spooky .. because you have already determined that they are co-moving > If you test rock A and find that it is in a > gravitational field then you have "spooky instantanoues knowledge" > about rock b. Nope.. indeed .. you do not necessarily know which is in a gravitational field and which is simply accelerating. All you know is that they have the same velocity profile
From: Huang on 6 Jun 2010 13:21 > > If I invent a tool (other than math) which can > > successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics. > > No Science (including physics) is : [1] qualitative [2] quantitative [3] predictive [4] reproducible [5] falsifiable Any physical theory which satisfies these things will be called physics - whether it is based on mathematics or not.
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 20:36
"Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4d49a5fc-a034-4004-a839-9c0ed947395c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > >> > If I invent a tool (other than math) which can >> > successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics. >> >> No > > > Science (including physics) is : > [1] qualitative > [2] quantitative > [3] predictive > [4] reproducible > [5] falsifiable Fine > Any physical theory which satisfies these things will be called > physics - whether it is based on mathematics or not. It is it quantitative and predictive, then it is explained mathematically. |