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 18:47 On Jun 7, 4:37 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. You have a funny view of what mathematics is. Then again, you have a funny view of what science is, too. Especially the part about a model saying "This might happen. Then again it might not. Or this might be responsible for what's happening. But then again, it might not." All you've managed to do is to capitalize different words for the purpose of relabeling Wishy Washy.
From: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 19:25 "Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3e88eb04-8a7d-4cfe-bb0d-f8c91d94fb4b(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yes it is > Everything is explicitly > designed so that absolute existence and absolute nonexistence are not > possible in this scheme. Why do you think mathematics cannot deal with uncertainty? > I disagree that this is math. You are wrong > Nothing is > proveable in this scheme, all is conjectural. Conjectures can be > consistent, but if proof is impossible you are certainly not doing > mathematics. That's just probability. You've tried this nonsense before .. and failed then to come up with anything that wasn't mathematics. You simly are naive and/or ignorant about what mathematics encompasses.
From: Huang on 7 Jun 2010 19:40 > > Cannot possibly be mathematics at all. > > Yes it is > > > Everything is explicitly > > designed so that absolute existence and absolute nonexistence are not > > possible in this scheme. > > Why do you think mathematics cannot deal with uncertainty? > > > I disagree that this is math. > > You are wrong > > > Nothing is > > proveable in this scheme, all is conjectural. Conjectures can be > > consistent, but if proof is impossible you are certainly not doing > > mathematics. > > That's just probability. > > You've tried this nonsense before .. and failed then to come up with > anything that wasn't mathematics. You simly are naive and/or ignorant about > what mathematics encompasses.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is ->nothing<- , anywhere, in the entire theory of probability which deals with things which "might exist". In fact, "might exist" does not appear anywhere in the annals of all of mathematics. Things either exist, or they do not. I use principles which look like probability, but are not really probability theory. That is why I choose to use the "existential potential". It is convenient to say (in an offhand way) that a point or a line exists with probability p. But this is a shortcut. You cannot really apply probability theory here because PT is orthodox mathematics and was carefully built to avoid these types of stupidities. Regardless, you can say that something has the "potential to exist", which is functionally the same thing as "existing with probability p". Formally I would prefer to use the concept of potential to be concise but invoking probability in an offhand way is just fine as long as one is cognizant of that critical aforementioned distinction.
From: Y.Porat on 8 Jun 2010 00:10 On Jun 7, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > ------------ -------------------- not at all !! give me an is otop of say Lead and i will give you not more then 2 at most) 3 possibilities what will be its exact Atomic weight !! with the error margins of the mass of 2 , 3 electron mass !!! (because i know exactly where Neutons can be attached to it and exactly the bond loss typical to those specific locations !! (it is fantastically innovative sorry you could not understand it until now !! may be because of too little time investment from you )) it seems to me that you still could not understand how important and revolutionary is the my book that is in your hands or you are not honest enough to admit it !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------
From: Huang on 8 Jun 2010 12:20
None of this quibbling addresses the fact that if two objects are in the same inertial referance frame, then - if you regard one of them as being in a gravitational field then you have instantaneous information about the other. And if you regard one of them as being in an accelerated reference frame then you have spooky instantaneous information about the other. This - regardless of how far apart they are separated, and without the need for some nebulous "information aether". |