Two slit experiment
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
Next: Misconceptions from bad use of language was Re: Two slit experiment
From: Y.Porat on 5 Jun 2010 23:55 On Jun 4, 5:02Â 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. > > Â Â These are misunderstandings on your part, rick_s. > > Â Â Background on the Photon > Â Â Â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon > Â Â Â 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 mâ²10â14 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 < 3Ã10â27 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 10â18eV 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 mâ²10â14 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 ------------------------
From: Huang on 6 Jun 2010 08:39 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. Mathematics is predicated on these philosophical assumptions. Why would a philosopher care if a modification of mathematics is equivalent to math ? If I invent a tool (other than math) which can successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics. 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.
From: Huang on 6 Jun 2010 08:44 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 mâ²10â14 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 < 3Ã10â27 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 10â18eV 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 mâ²10â14 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. 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. For both of these rocks, they could be regarded as being in a gravity field, or they could be regarded as acceleration through space. Rock A and rock B can be separated by ANY distance. If you test rock A and find that it is accelerating then you have "spooky instantanoues knowledge" about rock b. If you test rock A and find that it is in a gravitational field then you have "spooky instantanoues knowledge" about rock b.
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jun 2010 09:04 On 6/6/10 7:39 AM, Huang wrote: > 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. And the laws of conservation of momentum, angular momentum, energy, etc. hold true.
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jun 2010 09:12
On 6/6/10 7:44 AM, Huang wrote: > 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. "Motion relative to the universe"???? The universe is everything, including two rocks. Whether a rock is in motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of an observer. Let's be a bit more precise--assume two rocks. With respect to each other: x > 0 v = dx/dt = 0 and accelerating? dv/dt ≠ 0 |