Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 13 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 12 13
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill 6

That's what I SAID!

A single photon can have only one trajectory at a given instant not hundreds of trajectories.

If a single photon is directed towards one such slit you cannot then have hundreds of identical photons emerging from both slits.


Then you missed the point because it is showing hundreds of photon tracks.

Thats the point of the analagy so if you use copenhagen the particle just divided hundreds of times not quite sure how?

The only other way to contrive an answer is say each time it took different paths but then you wouldnt see lines but a single line because remember 1 photon many many seconds apart??????

They are the only two ways to view the result and neither really works well the second particually because thats not what we see.

Is that clearer .. you may need to read the whole paper the events are quite some time apart they are tracking the diffraction pattern.

It's quite impossible a single photon could produce the interference pattern unless you allow the photon to split in hundreds.

And there in lies the problem.

The single photon became many or the light used its wave nature to interfere through the slits

Both explaination now face problems with different parts of the observation.

The wave explaination has problem in that we can track particles on each and every trajectory. What you are seeing is a classic bohemian tracking

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/figure1.gif

Which was not supposed to happen remember this was all supposed to be settled.

The particle explaination has problem with why and how did it split.


Sorry english is not my native language so I may ask Bill or Bill.S to explain if you still don't get it.


There are a few Bohenian nutter's come back out the woodwork with the result I am expecting that but really both explainations are equally flawed.


As I said many on the modern QM groups where not suprised most had already considered Copenhagen dead based on other current work.

Last edited by Orac; 06/15/11 12:29 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I'm afraid I won't be much help in explaining it. I realize that the graph they show is the result of many measurements of many photons, one measurement per photon. I have absolutely no idea why it works the way it does. I do tend to agree with you about which explanation to go with, Number 2, an explanation that hasn't been developed yet.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
In my previous post I specifically asked you to suggest which of the other weirdnesses arising from QM provide a solution to the claimed particle/wave duality.

As anticipated you ignored that request.

I see no reason to continue this condescending monologue.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I in no way meant offence Bill 6, I assure you it is my english language skills not my intent.

I certainly don't have the answer so I am not sure I can be offensive.

I certainly don't wish to stop debates.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
Originally Posted By: Orac
I in no way meant offence Bill 6, I assure you it is my english language skills not my intent.

You openly accused me of "...ignoring a lot of the other weirdness thrown up by QM..."

It was NOT your English language skills which led you to make that statement. You were seemingly of the opinion that I was ignoring same thus accused me accordingly.

Your intent - i.e. dismissive criticism of my argument - was exhibited by the fact that you made this unwarranted claim NOT the way in which you worded it.

When I accordingly asked you to nominate specific weirdnesses you made no attempt to comply.

This does not indicate a weakness in expressing oneself in the English language but an inability, or unwillingness, to courteously conduct a discussion.

I have no intention of leaving myself open to the possibility of additional unfounded criticism.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Having returned after an enforced absence I find there is a lot in this thread that will need attention. As time is still at a premium, I have had only a quick scan through, so I could be entirely wrong, but I find myself wondering if, to some extent, Bill6 and Orac might be saying the same thing.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
They are continuing the work of weak measurement into a fairly powerful tool hopefully giving us some really interesting results

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-canadian-method-quantum-wavefunction.html

I really do appologize Bill 6 ... sorry.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Bill6; I recall saying that I would return to your comment about the convergence of the Milky Way and Andromeda. Trouble is, I can’t remember now what the point of discussion was. Time is too short at present to do a lot of hunting through past threads, so I shall just post a few questions and answers, not necessarily correct answers :), in the hope of getting near the topic. I thought that might be better than just letting the whole thing slip into oblivion.

In an expanding Universe, why are Andromeda and the Milky Way moving closer together?

The expansion of the Universe is causing the galaxy groups to separate. These two galaxies are in the same group, so the major influence comes from gravity, rather than the force of expansion. The expansion of the universe is not enough on the scale of our local galaxy group to overcome the attraction of gravity.

Considering the relativity of motion; is it possible to say if either galaxy is moving towards the other?

At first sight it would seem that the easiest way to tackle this question would be to regard the Local Group as a static frame of reference and decide which galaxy is moving relative to the LG. However, even that is not straightforward. Considering the situation more precisely; if you consider an inertial frame that is stationary relative to the centre of mass of the LG both galaxies will appear to be moving towards each other. There is a school of thought that says that to claim things are moving towards or away from each other is a contradiction in itself, and that instead we should say they are moving towards a state of equilibrium. However, in this instance, that seems not to be very helpful.

Is there any other, larger, thing in the Universe that could be taken as a static F of R?

Possibly, a supercluster can be regarded as a larger static unit, but the only universal thing I can think of is the Cosmic Microwave Background, which seems to approach every point in the Universe, at the same speed, from every angle. Presumably movement relative to the CMB is as near as we could get to “absolute movement”.

Do we know why Andromeda and the Milky Way are moving closer?

Gravitational attraction within the LG has to be the reason. At first glance it might seem that an equilibrium exists between gravity and the force of expansion which keeps the group together, but does not permit it to collapse. However, the collective velocity of the LG is estimated at around 270 kps towards the Virgo cluster (Virgocentric infall rate). It would seem that the LG is collapsing, but Andromeda and the Milky Way must be sufficiently close for their mutual gravity to provide movement in a secondary direction. The trouble seems to be that the closer one tries to look at the situation, the more one finds different movements. For example, both the LG and Virgo Cluster are moving at roughly 600kps (relative to the CMB) towards Hydra Centaurus and converging at the rate 270kps. Where does astronomy end and cosmology begin? Or is it the other way round?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
BTW, Bill6, I still plan to investigate the tired light idea when time permits.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Hi, just one question. For our Local Group, would it not be possible to use the CMB (cosmic microwave background) as the F of R?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I am not really expert enough to offer anything more than a humble opinion.

GR explicitly says there is no zero frame because gravity extends infinitely.

QM also explicity expresses the same view through Bell's inequality. It's worth doing the simple Bell test over at science 2.0 (http://www.science20.com/quantum_tantrums/be_be_measured_part_1-79218). Solve the puzzle see the problem :-) If you don't have the maths background he solves it for you in part 2 (http://www.science20.com/quantum_tantrums/be_be_measured_part_2-79615)

So I would say definitely no at a technical level.

Accepting that I can see the argument however that it is probably the nearest you will get to a zero frame the question really then becomes how tainted (not sure this is right word??) your results become.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
In an expanding Universe, why are Andromeda and the Milky Way moving closer together?

I think I've already indicated that I do not believe in the big bang/expanding universe theory.

Quote:
Considering the relativity of motion; is it possible to say if either galaxy is moving towards the other?

I don't see any difference between saying that it is moving toward us or we are moving toward it or we are moving toward each other.

I don't presently see any way of determining if Andromeda is moving relatively to a fundamental reference frame.

Quote:
Is there any other, larger, thing in the Universe that could be taken as a static F of R?

I agree that the CMBR provides a fundamental reference frame however detractors argue that the 'singularity' from which it is claimed the universe developed was moving when it exploded but for this to take place it would have to have been moving relatively to something yet their argument is that nothing existed prior to the 'explosion'.

Quote:
Do we know why Andromeda and the Milky Way are moving closer?

Gravitational attraction within the LG has to be the reason.

Agreed.

Quote:
Where does astronomy end and cosmology begin? Or is it the other way round?

Isn't the latter an extension of the former?

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
BTW, Bill6, I still plan to investigate the tired light idea when time permits.

You are possibly moving around so fast that time is slowing down for you.

BTW, my name is Billspace6 not Bill6 smirk

Last edited by Bill 6; 06/20/11 05:53 AM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Sorry, Bill 6; I must be having problems with the nature of space. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
LOL very good Bill S.

Ulrich mohrhoff over at science 2.0 has put up a really nice current state QM explaination of the revisited double slit.

http://www.science20.com/quantum_tantrums/blog/2slit_experiment_revisited-80111

So basically the current QM view is there is no left or right slit as far as the photon is concerned.


The more I read on QM the more I dislike it :-)


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Did alot of asking around and digging and managed to conn some time to talk to a pleb from a QM group.

Alot of the current QM groups believe there is a 3rd partcile besides fermions and bosons called anyons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon). I had never even heard of these had anyone else?

All the important work is cited in the wiki link.

They sort of predicted the slit doesn't really exist for light based around some works postulated in early 90's. I will link the only one I could find from that era apparently there are more
(http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/221658/files/cer-000134247.pdf?version=1). Probably why they were the only ones not surprised by the weak measurement results.

Sort of overview of anyon physics (http://sestrilevante08.ge.infn.it/relazioni_su_invito/cappelli.pdf)(http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quantum-Mechanics-Finally-Got-Weirder-16561.shtml)

Now apparently there are proposed tests that would enable the direct observation of the particle .. so stay tuned :-)

Sigh more reading and work to catch up on!

Last edited by Orac; 06/22/11 04:39 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Bill 6. I'm stilltrying to find time to look at tired light. The chances are I shall be slipping in odd questions for some time to come. Here's the first.

I found the following statement: "Since the relation [between observed redshifts] is the same in all directions it cannot be attributed to normal movement with respect to a background which would show an assortment of redshifts and blueshifts."

Why could not "normal movement" produce the observed redshifts?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 74
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I found the following statement: "Since the relation [between observed redshifts] is the same in all directions it cannot be attributed to normal movement with respect to a background which would show an assortment of redshifts and blueshifts."

Why could not "normal movement" produce the observed redshifts?

Presumably because normal movement would generate an assortment (roughly an equal amount) of redshifts and blueshifts not an overwhelming preponderance of redshifts as observed.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Ned Wright has a nice tutorial on it taking you step by step through it.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

Starts as a steady state universe then spherical explosion in a static space to finally an expanding universe.

According to it in chapter 2

Quote:

Models that do not predict this relationship between DA and DL, such as the chronometric model or the tired light model, are ruled out by the properties of the CMB.


So probably start with why that observation ruled them out.

.

Last edited by Orac; 07/04/11 09:52 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill 6
Presumably because normal movement would generate an assortment (roughly an equal amount) of redshifts and blueshifts not an overwhelming preponderance of redshifts as observed.


I reached this point, then I found myself wondering why spreading might not be considered as "normal movement with respect to a background".


There never was nothing.
Page 8 of 13 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 12 13

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5