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: PD on 7 Jun 2010 10:32 On Jun 7, 7:52 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 10:12 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/6/10 10:06 PM, Huang wrote: > > > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > > > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > > > equivalent to mathematics. > > > Have you got ANY example of physics that can be done without > > mathematics? ANY? > > The best example would indeed be the simplest. From there, you can > build up to more complex things. The wording will be vastly different > from what you are accustomed to because you have been using > mathematics during your entire tenure as a scientist. But, the numbers > should jive with equal precision. > > The simplest possible example I can think of at the moment is > rectilinear motion. An object is moving in a straight line. > > Using mathematics (say calculus for example) you might describe the > position of the object as (x,y,z) where x=0, y=0, and z=t. There are > lots of ways to write parametric equations, or transform things with > linear algebra, bla bla bla. All wonderful stuff and I dont question > it. Consider the interval t = [0, 10] and you have an object that > moves with constant motion for 10 seconds from (0,0,0) to (0,0,10). > > But We will write this same parametrization a little differently. > > First, the points along each axis, including time, do not exist with > certainty = 1. Lets make it easy and say that each point exists with > certainty 1/2 and just leave the "distribution of certainties" > uniform, I would call that a linear distribution as would most people > I suspect. We want the "expected time" to be 10, as in the example > above. The "expected distance" should also be 10. > > So, along each axis, x,y,z, you have 10 units of length which exists > and you compose that with 10 units of nonexistent length. This gives a > total length of 20, but it is 1/2 nonexistent and so the expected > length is 10. You can view it 2 different ways, the nonexistent > portion is either discretely distributed, or could be continuously > distributed, either way it does not matter because they are equivalent > in terms of the end result. These are "conjectured lengths", and > clearly we are no longer doing mathematics. > > You also have 20 units of "conjectured time", 10 exist and 10 do not, > giving expected time of 10. > > So we want to model something which is "conjectured to be", we cannot > assume existence of our object either, it is conjectured as > well.....and we want that "conjectured object" to move the same way > the other one did in the original example. The origin (0,0,0) may or > may not exist, and the odds are 50:50, and so too each point may exist > with the odds being 50:50 all the way to (0,0,10). > > There is a 50:50 chance that time will index forward at each moment, > and when it does we will find that (0,0,t) is is motion along the z > axis, we cannot know exactly where it is at any given moment because > 1/2 the points in z = (0,20) do not exist. But t is also going from o > to 20, with 50:50 odds pointswise continuously and so it's really no > different than the standard mathematical parametrization. > > Conjectured object has an "expected motion", moving from (0,0,0) to > (0,0,10). > > That may need a little polishing and it sounds quite bizarre but it is > approximately what you would need to say to reason this way. What you've just done is still a form of mathematics.
From: Y.Porat on 7 Jun 2010 10:46 On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Huang" <huangxienc...(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. > > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > > equivalent to mathematics. > > > And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the > > scope of a mathematical proof - > > There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively > predictive results? ---------------------- see my model parrot Y.P -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 7 Jun 2010 10:59 On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Huang" <huangxienc...(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. > > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > > equivalent to mathematics. > > > And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the > > scope of a mathematical proof - > > There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively > predictive results? ---------------- my model i s based on mostly arithmetic and geometric structure descriptions !!! nothing like that in your fucken books so ?? moreover !!! as for now YOU HAVE NO CHANCE !!TO DESCRIBE IN A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA WHAT I DESCRIBE IN ONE SIMPLE 3D SKETCH !!! moreover not the slightest mathematical thinking we needed for it yet you i bet you cant even immagine how much thinking reading experimental testing 'endless' many alternatives etc etc and testing it by experimental data was invested in it the only the simplest linear formula i was used in the specific weight analysis Y.Porat -------------------------- Y.P ----------------------------- Y.P ------------------------- Y.P ------------
From: PD on 7 Jun 2010 11:32 On Jun 7, 9:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Huang" <huangxienc...(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. > > > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > > > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > > > equivalent to mathematics. > > > > And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the > > > scope of a mathematical proof - > > > There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively > > predictive results? > > ---------------- > my model i s based on mostly > arithmetic > and geometric structure descriptions !!! > nothing like that in your fucken books so ?? > moreover !!! > as for now > YOU HAVE NO CHANCE !!TO DESCRIBE IN A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA > WHAT I DESCRIBE IN ONE > SIMPLE 3D SKETCH !!! Even if you have a sketch, if you want a quantitative prediction, you have to do a calculation, even a simple one. > moreover > not the slightest mathematical thinking we needed for it > yet you i bet you cant even immagine how much thinking reading > experimental > testing 'endless' many alternatives etc etc and testing it by > experimental data was invested in it > the only the simplest linear formula i was used > in the specific weight analysis > Y.Porat > -------------------------- > > Y.P > ----------------------------- > Y.P > ------------------------- > > Y.P > ------------
From: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 11:50
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:58a976b1-1a96-43e0-936d-c1fd394ba1f1(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > > "Huang" <huangxienc...(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. >> >> > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can >> > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are >> > equivalent to mathematics. >> >> > And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the >> > scope of a mathematical proof - >> >> There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively >> predictive results? > > ---------------------- > see my model Irrelevant to the question being asked. |