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 16 of 17 1 2 14 15 16 17
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
For Bill S.

I saw this it is sort topical so thought I might as well throw it in here for you incase you didnt see it.

I have several problems with this and in time we may get to that but lets see what you think of it

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-nature-laws-vary-universe.html


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks, Orac. Looks like an interesting link. Hopefully I'll be able to give it some time later and will share my thoughts.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
If alpha varies directionally across the observable Universe, would this not suggest a cosmic directionality that would lead to a breakdown of the principle that no place is special?

"The smooth continuous change in alpha may also imply the Universe is much larger than our observable part of it, possibly infinite."

I thought it was generally accepted that the Universe was likely to be bigger than we can see. I take it that the “infinity” referred to is the “this is infinite if you view it from here, but finite from over there” sort of infinity, beloved of cosmologists. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Finiter, I feel as though I am hijacking your thread with a lot of stuff about infinity.

I have just been trying to pull together some of the infinity related parts of the thread. If you would rather I transferred this to a new thread I will do so; if not I will post it here, as the discussion seems relevant, and is going well.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I thought it was generally accepted that the Universe was likely to be bigger than we can see. I take it that the “infinity” referred to is the “this is infinite if you view it from here, but finite from over there” sort of infinity, beloved of cosmologists. smile


Correct :-)

And infact it could be infinite in one direction and not the other, our old expanding treadmill example from way back.

As I said I have problems with what they are saying I actually think there is an easier answer that needs to be checked. Start your new thread and I will discuss it.

Last edited by Orac; 11/01/11 01:24 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

Provide me observations of these thing called electrons, protons and nuetrons are finite solid particles please.

You go of into a whole pile of stuff about numbers of electrons, protons etc ... really not in the argument

I will get you started standard "double slit electron experiment" we do it with every student (http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html) as it's an easy experiment. Explain away please how does your theory cover this.

Electrons have finite masses and radii. That is an indication that it is a solid particle. How such solid particles (electrons and positrons) integrate into neutron, another solid particle, having a finite mass was explained earlier; it is indeed a part of the argument: solid particles integrating into heavier solid particles in a deterministic way is a proof to show that they are indeed 'solid particles'. Actually, my theory predicts the mass of neutron by taking the particles to be 'solid'. It must be remembered that the existing theories do not predict the mass of neutron.

Regarding the double slit experiment:

With a single slit, if the electrons were always ejected parallel to the slit and there were no interactions at the edges of the slit, we will get a 'clear image of the slit with well defined boundaries' on the screen. But what is observed is a spread out image indicating that the source is not a point source, the electrons are ejected in different directions and there are interactions at the edges of the slit. The interactions are gravitational electrostatic and magnetic. In my model, the electrons have real spins; they spin clockwise or anticlockwise with respect to the direction of the motion, and the spin is always in a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion.

In the case of a double slit, the usual explanation is that since there are two slits every part of the screen will receive electrons from the two slits, and hence we may expect a uniform increase in the intensity, but what is observed is an interference pattern, thereby indicating that electron is a wave. However, I will see it in a different way. There is only one slit, the central part of which is blocked, thus making it a double slit. 'With that block' and 'without that block' the images on the screen will be different. The block will have its own affect on the image, by preventing the electrons from reaching some regions.

Let each electron be sent one by one. When there are statistically sufficient number of electrons, the slits and the block in between the slits will receive a uniform distribution of electrons. Nearly half of the electrons will have clockwise and the rest anticlockwise spins. The magnetic fields of these will be opposite, and these will be deflected towards or away from the edges of the slits. Thus the pattern formed on the screen will resemble the interference pattern of waves.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Finiter, I feel as though I am hijacking your thread with a lot of stuff about infinity.

I have just been trying to pull together some of the infinity related parts of the thread. If you would rather I transferred this to a new thread I will do so; if not I will post it here, as the discussion seems relevant, and is going well.

Infinity is something connected with reality, and I am closely watching your opinions. I think you missed my last reply to you regarding mathematical and physical infinities.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
For Bill S.

I saw this it is sort topical so thought I might as well throw it in here for you incase you didnt see it.

I have several problems with this and in time we may get to that but lets see what you think of it

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-nature-laws-vary-universe.html

It may be an indication that the expansion of the universe is directional, and in that case the universe can have a centre.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter

Electrons have finite masses and radii. That is an indication that it is a solid particle.


Sorry they most definitely have neither they have a range we call a probibity of distribution.


Originally Posted By: finiter

How such solid particles (electrons and positrons) integrate into neutron, another solid particle, having a finite mass was explained earlier; it is indeed a part of the argument: solid particles integrating into heavier solid particles in a deterministic way is a proof to show that they are indeed 'solid particles'. Actually, my theory predicts the mass of neutron by taking the particles to be 'solid'. It must be remembered that the existing theories do not predict the mass of neutron.



See where you walked headlong into is actually interesting as we have direct observational proof that electrons, protons, nuetrons are waves we have absolutely no proof they are solid.

The idea of duality was born mainly from chemistry which convinced science that there were these little things called atoms and they painted this picture of it.

Now even chemistry has given up on that view.

QM is posing you to the very big question was DUALITY EVER REAL ... do particles actually exist.

This presents the backdrop to why your theory is at odds with QM and you have to dismiss it.

The reality is we can prove QM and that what you call particles are most likely virtual particles but there is absolutely no scientific evidence of any sort of solid particle that is as they say science myth and your theory is founded on a myth.


Originally Posted By: finiter

Regarding the double slit experiment:

With a single slit, if the electrons were always ejected parallel to the slit and there were no interactions at the edges of the slit, we will get a 'clear image of the slit with well defined boundaries' on the screen. But what is observed is a spread out image indicating that the source is not a point source, the electrons are ejected in different directions and there are interactions at the edges of the slit. The interactions are gravitational electrostatic and magnetic. In my model, the electrons have real spins; they spin clockwise or anticlockwise with respect to the direction of the motion, and the spin is always in a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion.

In the case of a double slit, the usual explanation is that since there are two slits every part of the screen will receive electrons from the two slits, and hence we may expect a uniform increase in the intensity, but what is observed is an interference pattern, thereby indicating that electron is a wave. However, I will see it in a different way. There is only one slit, the central part of which is blocked, thus making it a double slit. 'With that block' and 'without that block' the images on the screen will be different. The block will have its own affect on the image, by preventing the electrons from reaching some regions.

Let each electron be sent one by one. When there are statistically sufficient number of electrons, the slits and the block in between the slits will receive a uniform distribution of electrons. Nearly half of the electrons will have clockwise and the rest anticlockwise spins. The magnetic fields of these will be opposite, and these will be deflected towards or away from the edges of the slits. Thus the pattern formed on the screen will resemble the interference pattern of waves.


Only we can actually take the thing down to a single electron, proton, nuetron these days so what you have just explained is rubbish (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110224091619.htm)

You can't have statistical interference on a single object the object is interferring with itself. This argument is dead and buried.

See your explaination simply doesn't wash it's a historic argument when we couldn't settle the science.

So I am emitting a single photon, electron, proton how do I get an interferrence pattern if said thing is not a wave.


Everything I have told you here is factual observation I have not added in theories or what I believe I am simply asking you to consider the observations.


The problem I pose is does DUALITY exist ... I have observational evidence for wave like behaviour I have absolutely no obseravtional evidence for solid particle like behaviour .... even though it might play with your sensibilities they are the facts.

Modern QM is posing the question is there such thing as a solid particle the answer keeps coming back time and time again .. NO.

So you pose that QM is a mistake ... QM asks of your theory is it built on a mistake that is wrong at science.

It's understandable why you don't like QM :-)

Last edited by Orac; 11/01/11 05:45 AM.

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
Originally Posted By: finiter
It may be an indication that the expansion of the universe is directional, and in that case the universe can have a centre.


Your sort of thinking is somewhat correct it would have a centre but that centre would not be in our universe weirdly. It would probably also wobble like most barycentres do.

To understand why it cant be in the universe you would have to go back and understand what alpha represents.

The question the researchers didnt think about and I was hinting at to Bill S it may imply the universe is spinning about this off universe centre creating a magnetic dipole, see they observed EM waves which are subject to magnetic effects.

It easy to imagine that, call the surface of earth the universe we are rotating about a centre point and that point is not on the surface of our planet.

Alot of galaxies rotate it's not much of a stretch to consider the universe rotating.

Infact if you follow my discussions I actually discussed that I had done work on that exact proposition and theory but threw it away because I had no observational data to back it up.

Last edited by Orac; 11/01/11 05:49 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
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I didn’t miss your comments, Finiter, what I “missed” was responding, for which I apologise. In fact, we seem to think along similar lines as far as the infinite is concerned. I assume from your last sentence that you agree that nothing finite can become infinite, even curvature or gravity.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
On reflection, I think I will take the infinity discussion out to a thread of its own. Hopefully see you there, folks!


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
The reality is we can prove QM.

No there is no proof for QM; only observational evidences, which in fact are wrongly explained.

Originally Posted By: Orac
You can't have statistical interference on a single object the object is interferring with itself.

So I am emitting a single photon, electron, proton how do I get an interferrence pattern if said thing is not a wave.

Are you saying that interference is not possible if electrons are sent one by one? Whether it is a wave or particle, interference patterns are obtained even if the electrons are sent one by one. Each electron hits a particular point of the sensitive screen, and finally after a statistically significant number of electrons had hit the plate, the plate will show an interference pattern. This is what I have read. I do not know whether it is a theoretical explanation, or a computer simulation or an actual experiment.
What I have explained is that even if it is a solid particle, due to the difference in the magnetic field, half of the electrons are bent towards the edge of the slit and half away from the edge, and thus a pattern similar to the interference pattern can be formed.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter
No there is no proof for QM; only observational evidences, which in fact are wrongly explained.


ROFL so you don't doubt the observation but the explaination is wrong even though you can't provide any viable alternative.

Here is what you are saying

"Yes I can see the dinosaur bones but I am sure there is a perfectly good reason they ressemble animal bones but as I know there are no such animals the explaination is wrong"

Come on do you really expect us to take you seriously with that stupidity of an argument.

Provide a valid answer and I might even remotely take you seriously otherwise the only person you are deluding is yourself.


Originally Posted By: Orac
Are you saying that interference is not possible if electrons are sent one by one? Whether it is a wave or particle, interference patterns are obtained even if the electrons are sent one by one. Each electron hits a particular point of the sensitive screen, and finally after a statistically significant number of electrons had hit the plate, the plate will show an interference pattern.


In the old days we couldn't seperate single electrons .. we can now because we can go into the terahertz range of operations.

I can send one electron every one minute if I want or maybe just one single electron ever.

If I take a photo of that one electron event I will see the interference pattern.


Originally Posted By: finiter

This is what I have read. I do not know whether it is a theoretical explanation, or a computer simulation or an actual experiment.


What you have read is the old attempt to appease those who didn't like the wave behaviour and preserve there precious little particles because they wanted these little particle things to make there wonderful stupidity they called the atom model which looked like a little mini solar system.

Of coarse that model stupidity is now dead and we can prove that story is rubbish.


Originally Posted By: finiter

What I have explained is that even if it is a solid particle, due to the difference in the magnetic field, half of the electrons are bent towards the edge of the slit and half away from the edge, and thus a pattern similar to the interference pattern can be formed.


And as I have explained what you have read is 1970's rubbish that few scientist would even remotely consider viable.


You are dealing with one of thousands of observations I can give you for wave behaviour but that is not your challenge so you don't have to proove it wrong you keep getting sidetracked.


YOUR TASK WAS TO SHOW ME OBSERVAION THAT SUPPORTS OR PROOVES THERE ARE SOLID PARTICLES.


See here is the interesting thing you say that your world is reality etc yet your whole theory is based on a lie.

Some idiot when you were going to school told you there were these things called particles, they had no valid observation to tell you that but they did.


You believed that implicitly and infact you have built illussions around it in your head this is "your reality".


As I said unfortunately I can't help you there is no scientific observation of your fantasy solid particles and I know alot of science observations.


Do you see why I laugh at you trying to dismiss QM at least I have observations for believing my fantasy yours is built on the lie told to you at school and based on chemistry that was wrong.

Last edited by Orac; 11/02/11 06:48 AM.

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
I realize what I have given you above is probably quite confronting Finiter and for that I appologize.

I have had first year students break down and cry when they realize that alot of there beliefs in the subject they love (they generally love it to continue studying it) is built on lies.

QM is very confronting it challenges you to look carefully at each and every fact and question is this the truth.

When you do a hard look at solid particles there is no reason to believe they exist. Having little wave packets accomplishes the same thing and without needing to build ridiculous little fairytales.

As scientists we have asked all physics magazines etc to stop drawing solid little particles and so if you look at a modern magazine article and I chose this one at random
(http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-uv-antibodies-biosensors.html). A photon is represented by a litttle wave symbol and thats really all the difference is.

We have done this so we don't end up with more generations who grow up believing something that is most likely a lie.

Even a simple wiki of an atom has dispensed with the good old fanatsy planet view of an atom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom).


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

The problem I pose is does DUALITY exist ...

Modern QM is posing the question is there such thing as a solid particle the answer keeps coming back time and time again .. NO.

It's understandable why you don't like QM :-)

What my theory says is 'duality does not exist'. We have only particles that shows some wavelike character because of its wavy motion.

Electrons and neutrons have mass, which can be measured accurately. Their masses are are not probabilistic, but deterministic. I have explained how the the mass of neutron can be predicted, and this becomes possible because the mass is deterministic.

Electrons and neutrons have finite masses. If you take QM to be correct, then the masses are probabilistic. If you take that they are solid particles, then the masses are deterministic. The observations can be explained in both ways, and hence these observations cannot be regarded as a proof of QM.

I don't like QM because of the 'instant-duality'. Duality (not instant-duality) is something that can exist(IMO). The particle should take some time to change into a wave and there should be a mechanism for that. I argue QM is wrong on the basis of logic, and not because I dislike it.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Orac, you are saying: "If I take a photo of that one electron event I will see the interference pattern." Do you mean that if you sent just one electron only, and then stopped the experiment, you will get an interference pattern. Can you provide a suitable link which clearly states that?

Again, you have still not provided any proof for QM. As far as observations are concerned, I have provided alternate explanations earlier. In which case do you want an alternate explanation?

QM is an established theory. The same argument that you have put against me (Some idiot when you were going to school told you there were these things called particles, they had no valid observation to tell you that but they did. You believed that implicitly and infact you have built illussions around it in your head this is "your reality".) can be said of you also. Heisenberg got a wrong idea that there is duality at the level of particles. The QM is built on that wrong assumption. Now QM is the in-thing and is being taught. So many people believe in it, and argue that no other explantion will be valid.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter

What my theory says is 'duality does not exist'. We have only particles that shows some wavelike character because of its wavy motion.


And as I said provide me some observation that only has particle behaviour that could not be done by waves. Would you like a list of observations which show off wave like behaviour that can not be explained by particles.


Originally Posted By: finiter

Electrons and neutrons have mass, which can be measured accurately. Their masses are are not probabilistic, but deterministic. I have explained how the the mass of neutron can be predicted, and this becomes possible because the mass is deterministic.


That is a ridiculous statement so you know it's mass exactly except if you weigh it well it will vary around a range????? And that makes sense to you.

I can give you hundreds of observations about a nuetron that will defy it being a particle lets be sensible here. Do you really want to go into this or you happy to go read up nuetron observations.

Quote:

Electrons and neutrons have finite masses. If you take QM to be correct, then the masses are probabilistic.


You have no understanding of QM if you think that .. Quantum mechanics is built on Quanta it's in the name even.


Quote:

If you take that they are solid particles, then the masses are deterministic. The observations can be explained in both ways, and hence these observations cannot be regarded as a proof of QM.


Right so it solid and real and ohhhh we just ignore those dinosaur bones again.

Quote:

I don't like QM because of the 'instant-duality'. Duality (not instant-duality) is something that can exist(IMO). The particle should take some time to change into a wave and there should be a mechanism for that. I argue QM is wrong on the basis of logic, and not because I dislike it.


I don't particually like duality either set lets look carefully at observation evidence ... oh wait you can't provide any ... and actually noone has been able to when challenged.

Last edited by Orac; 11/02/11 10:06 AM.

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
Originally Posted By: finiter
Orac, you are saying: "If I take a photo of that one electron event I will see the interference pattern." Do you mean that if you sent just one electron only, and then stopped the experiment, you will get an interference pattern. Can you provide a suitable link which clearly states that?


http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ihn/papers/GustavssonNanoL08.pdf

Done for the first time in 2008 been done a mirriad of different ways since.

Would you like a full list of then last I looked been confirmed about 90+ ways.

With quantum dots and quantum entangling a single electron its rather trivial these days.

So there is a single electron interferring with itself explain away please.


Quote:

Again, you have still not provided any proof for QM. As far as observations are concerned, I have provided alternate explanations earlier. In which case do you want an alternate explanation?


What absolute rubbish all you have done is said I see those observations but that isn't QM.

Then you have to explain the observations and you can't.

Edit: I am trying to not be forceful here and tolerant but sorry I am getting frustrated with the cyclical nature of argument.

Quote:

QM is an established theory. The same argument that you have put against me (Some idiot when you were going to school told you there were these things called particles, they had no valid observation to tell you that but they did. You believed that implicitly and infact you have built illussions around it in your head this is "your reality".) can be said of you also. Heisenberg got a wrong idea that there is duality at the level of particles. The QM is built on that wrong assumption. Now QM is the in-thing and is being taught. So many people believe in it, and argue that no other explantion will be valid.


Sorry some idiot did tell you a lie ... unless you care to show me an observation that only a particle can explain otherwise we have no need for a particle to exist in science we call that occums razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

There is nothing really controversial in what I have told you here all that really changes is your cute little solid particles become these wavey things the world doesn't end because of it.

Heisenberg was doing the best to create a story consistant at the time. His uncertainty principle is correct and we know why because the particles are virtual they aren't real so we can dispense with the duality.

The reason people believe in QM is because it has observation evidence and NEVER been wrong even with some of the most weird and unlikely results.

If you feel comfortable in your little particle fantasy then stay there it's like newtonian physics it sort of works. I guess you have to stay with your nice school book image of the planetary atom as well. And hey some people still believe the earth is flat.

Science progress is a relentless moving forward creating a solid consistant theory that explain ALL observations not just some you chose to accept.

Last edited by Orac; 11/02/11 02:59 PM.

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
Our usual after work mid week discussion and the usual discussion turn to pseudoscience and I was lamenting the number of people who still don't believe the double slit experiment.

A friend of mine pointed out that an education company had infact put a setup on the market so you can do your own tests of double slit with a single photon.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml

The 3ns timing is now easily within range of cheap commercial electronics.

What we see everyday coming out of the labs and into a classroom near you hopefully.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 16 of 17 1 2 14 15 16 17

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 UsokĀž»­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