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: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 11:51 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bdce3c8b-eb16-480b-9dec-74469f0164c4(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? > > ---------------- > my model i s based on mostly > arithmetic > and geometric structure descriptions !!! So its mathematics. > 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 !!! Of course you can. > moreover > not the slightest mathematical thinking we needed for it You don't know what 'mathematical thinking' means > 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 You model, in order to make predictions is mathematical (geometric) .. not that it DOES make any predictions.
From: Puppet_Sock on 7 Jun 2010 12:00 On May 29, 11:24 am, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: [snip] > I will need to use a thought experiment to show you... [Rube Goldberg's floating bowling pins snipped] Sigh. Since light does not behave like bowling pins, floating or otherwise... Socks
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Jun 2010 12:15 On 6/7/10 7:52 AM, Huang wrote: > On Jun 6, 10:12 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > See: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Line.html
From: Huang on 7 Jun 2010 17:37 On Jun 7, 9:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Cannot possibly be mathematics at all. Everything is explicitly designed so that absolute existence and absolute nonexistence are not possible in this scheme. I disagree that this is math. Nothing is proveable in this scheme, all is conjectural. Conjectures can be consistent, but if proof is impossible you are certainly not doing mathematics.
From: Huang on 7 Jun 2010 17:38
On Jun 7, 11:15 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/7/10 7:52 AM, Huang wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 10:12 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > See:http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Line.html See http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/ |