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: Sue... on 6 Jun 2010 09:54 On Jun 6, 8:44 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ============ > > 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. This seems to work that way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit1.gif > Assume that they are accelerating. Assumptions don't exert forces. You have to be more specific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration > Call them Rock A and Rock B. Hello Rock A. Hello Rock B. So nice to meet both of you. :-) > > For both of these rocks, they could be regarded as being in a gravity > field, or they could be regarded as acceleration through space. No they can't be regarded both ways because you can be more specific about what you mean by acceleration You want to be taken seriously, remember? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29#Torque_and_rotation Sue... > 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: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 10:46 "Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fde6942d-c330-40ca-ba78-5a24d030e18b(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > 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". There is none > 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. They aren't
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 |