Quantum Theory

[hecd2]

EXACTLY in what way does it conflict? Don’t give me a string of equations that you think somehow won’t fit. Tell me in what exact way that physical model doesn’t apply to the physical situation. To do that, you need to come up with a physical picture yourself.

No I don’t. Physics is a mathematical science from beginning to end (going back to at least Galilean descriptions of motions including Galilean transformations and Keplerian dynamics) and if you don’t understand the maths, you don’t understand the physics. The physical picture I have been using has been that of physical optics and electro-magnetic wave theory that has been thoroughly understood for more than a hundred years. You simply can’t derive explanations for the behaviour of light by simple analogies to bullets, wheels, clouds or anything else. Your model conflicts with known physics in the following ways:

• Does not predict the observed production of fringes in a quantised Young’s experiment (the OP’s question)
• Does not give the correct prediction for the observed production of fringes in a non-quantised Young’s experiment as the destructive interference predicted is a monotonic function of separation in the model
• Does not give the observed diffraction pattern in the far field at a straight edge, or a circular or a rectangular aperture
• Does not model observed photon energy
• Confuses polarisation with wave phase relationships
• Confuses wave diffraction effects with gravitational effects

You are wrong. The correct term is diffraction whether you are talking about waves or particles.

Oh give us a break and get a dictionary;

You cannot determine the meaning of scientific terms from a general dictionary - in science they have very precise meanings, and in this case the phenomenon you are talking about is diffraction (departures from geometric optics predictable by the wave theory of light). The phenomenon of dispersion is something else entirely (dependence of refractive index on wavelength - the effect that causes prismatic colour separation). That’s just a fact. In this case, by maintaining your error, you are just showing how little you know about the subject that you are presuming to teach everyone else.

Yes you DID get it WRONG!!! {geeez}

Yes, I got that particular thing wrong. Take note of the fact that I know enough about what I am talking about to realise that what I said was wrong; and that I immediately held up my hand and admitted that I had made a mistake - you could learn something from that.

you can’t determine a unique path for any photon.

Maybe YOU can’t, but it certainly CAN be done. But the truth is that it wouldn’t matter whether it could realistically be done anyway. We were talking about a theoretical situation.

I can’t, you can’t, no-one can in any situation where interference can take place; and that is the essence of experiments like the quantised Young’s that you don’t even seem to understand. Furthermore using hypothetical situations that plainly violate known physics to make predictions are worse than useless - they lead to very poor predictions.

You DO realize that they fire single photons through experimental apparatuses to measure a variety of things?

Of course, that is exactly what quantised Young’s is. Don’t patronise me - I have done these experiments myself - have you?

You don’t bring the photons so close to the edge that they “touch” such as to get reflected. And you don’t fire one after another so close that one interferes with the other in flight.

Nevertheless, and this is the essence of these sort of quantised experiments that you fail to understand, even if you fire the photons off one a week, their number density distribution is the same as the diffraction pattern predicted by wave theory.

If each photon is going to “self-defract” due to being too narrow of a beam. I would like to know how they ever find their way across space. You are saying that they just wander aimlessly in self-determined directions. Emmm… NO.

The word is diffract not defract. So, in this case, if you constrain the photons to be travelling through a narrow aperture with a narrowly constrained momentum vector, even if you fire them off one a week, they will diffract (each will diffract by a different random amount), and over time their distribution in the far field will reconstruct the intensity distribution as predicted by wave theory for that constrained propagation state (its Fourier transform). This is not theory - this is observation.

You are trying to explain mathematics as though the math were the physical reality.

No, I am describing the physical reality (which itself you are unaware of) using theories and models based on maths - that’s what physics is.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Distance and dimensions are created by distinction in effect which any instantaneous effect would eliminate.

That’s simply not so. There is no reason why an infinite speed of light would eliminate the concept of distance between points in space or the dimensions of an object. Metaphysicians have never had anything to say about the speed of light. The concept that light would be detected at the same time that it is emitted violates known physics not metaphysics, and is known to be false by observation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[James_S_Saint]

The physical picture I have been using has been that of physical optics and electro-magnetic wave theory that has been thoroughly understood for more than a hundred years.

That is not a picture. That is a bunch of mathematics that people can’t relate to anything real because the math is not intended to draw the picture, merely give detail to the measurements. But the measurements of WHAT to WHAT? When you answer the “to what” with merely more math terminology, you actually have explained only a circular concoction which is why the whole relativity concept led to the idea that there are no absolutes, which of course got turned into our new religion of quantum scientism, “the only truth is our wisdom of probability mathematics”.

Though sophisticated mathematics to you, to the Logician, the “theory of relativity” seemed like a joke for a child. “We measured all things and find that all things have a relative measurement to all things” - Well… DUHhhh!

Your model conflicts with known physics in the following ways:

• Does not predict the observed production of fringes in a quantised Young’s experiment (the OP’s question) - [IT didn’t predict ANYthing. It was one simple piece of a big puzzle]
• Does not give the correct prediction for the observed production of fringes in a non-quantised Young’s experiment as the destructive interference predicted is a monotonic function of separation in the model[IT didn’t predict ANYthing. It was one simple piece of a big puzzle]
• Does not give the observed diffraction pattern in the far field at a straight edge, or a circular or a rectangular aperture[IT didn’t give a pattern of any sort. It was one simple piece of a big puzzle]
• Does not model observed photon energy[Oh really? How so? And more importantly, how did you **observe this?]

• Confuses polarisation with wave phase relationships[No it gave a physical picture of how the two are related and yield easily confused effects if you merely look at the mathematics and not the reality.]
• Confuses wave diffraction effects with gravitational effects[Not in the slightest]

You are reminding me of someone who is **desperately **trying to hide the magic, “don’t look behind the curtain!”

I give one tiny little picture to someone who asked, and you flare into a rage of how it doesn’t explain the entire universe and thus is heresy. If I were to have first told you of a gravity field causing things to fall, no doubt, you would have proclaimed that it didn’t explain how Eve came from Ahdam and thus is HERESY!!

For that one “wheel” model to be used to predict the confusions that the Quanta Magi have fallen into, there are many other things to think about LOGICALLY, not merely probabilistically or mathematically.

 

[James_S_Saint]

That’s simply not so. There is no reason why an infinite speed of light would eliminate the concept of distance between points in space or the dimensions of an object. Metaphysicians have never had anything to say about the speed of light. The concept that light would be detected at the same time that it is emitted violates known physics not metaphysics, and is known to be false by observation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Like I said, “if YOU don’t understand it, having learned of ALL things, WE, the WORLD knows it isn’t true.”

I think it is generally referred to as being sophomoric.

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

the things you claimed to know by pure logic

(ie that light must have a finite speed and what it is) *cannot *be known by pure logic.So what is your source for knowing that such a thing “cannot” be known?

They cannot be known by pure logic because they are aspects of the natural world that we can only access through our senses, and therefore our knowledge of them *must *be based on observation. We did not know, nor could know, that light has a finite speed until it was measured as such by Romer.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[James_S_Saint]

They cannot be known by pure logic because they are aspects of the natural world that we can only access through our senses, and therefore our knowledge of them *must *be based on observation.

That’s an interesting thing to say. Did you merely observe the truth of that?

Using logic is thinking rationally. But that would explain the inability of some people to KNOW things.

 

[hecd2]

Like I said, “if YOU don’t understand it, having learned of ALL things, WE, the WORLD knows it isn’t true.”

I think it is generally referred to as being sophomoric.

I note your inability to actually lay out a logical argument that shows, without using knowledge which has its foundations in scientific observations, that an infinite speed of light would entail the collapse of the concept of distance. You have claimed it, but that is not the same as showing why it must be so.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I see, so you are an offended worshiper of the quanta magi.

Too bad. It is scientism superstition. Making up, “stitching”, entities into the construct of understanding so as to claim knowledge when in fact it is made almost entirely of invented entities to fill the gaps in knowledge. They do exactly what they accuse the religions of doing. It is just another religion, sorely misled.

And trying to attach to more real scientists such a Bell, is just a part of the game of ethos referencing as we see everyday around here. There is real Science and then there is quantum scientism - a cult.

Well there is no way of arguing with someone whose ignorance of a subject is as profound as yours. In its domain, the predictions of quantum physics are different from those of classical physics and are confirmed to high degrees of precision every day, but no-one can stop you from continuing to make an exhibition of yourself.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I’m surprised someone hasn’t compared anybody to Hitler yet…

Seriously, guys, if you wanna pick a fight, do it the right way, and go stir up the Orthodox against the Catholics like everybody else.

Here’s my conclusion based on empirical evidence: there’s nothing about religion, politics, sports, or physics that’s inherently controversial – it’s the internet that turns us into fiends!

How about this; in string theory, there are no particles, just strings – discuss [braces for thrown furniture].

 

[Ismael]

Anyone like to try explaining it. How a photon can be in two places but not at the same time.

It’s not

I think there is here some confusion.

---

1- the experiment with the half transparent mirror put on a 45 deigree angle and we shine light on it

1/2 of the photons will be reflected, 1/2 will go through.

If now wi shine a laser beam (billions of photons) on it the detectors will register the same intensity wich is 1/2 of the intensity of the laser beam

But what is we project only ONE photon? The answer is: statistically it will have 50% chance to go in one or the other direction. The photon will ‘choose’ one and we cannot know a priori which.

This expoeriment was used to prove that indeed the photon has also ‘perticle-behavior’ and not only ‘wave-behavior’ (departments.colgate.edu/physics/research/Photon/root/ajpbs02.pdf)

Such system is used to generate ‘random numbers’ : randomnumbers.info/content/Generating.htm

HENCE: ONE photon will NOT reach BOTH detectors, but will randombly reach or one or the other.

---

2- Particle in a box.

If we put a particle in a box (e.g. an electron) then inside the box there will be, at every point in space, a probability density to find the particle. This does not mean that the particle is everywhere at the same time, we just cannot know where it is BEFORE measuring.

Measuring one particle in the box will give us ONE location.
Measuring millions of equal sistems will give us many location, resulting in a probability density, hence for every point we’ll know how likely it is for a particle to actually be found there if the system is measured.

Moreover if the particle is measured the ‘wavefunction’ that describes the particle “collapses” (meaning that we force the particle to take a stand and tell us where it is).
This is beacause by MEASURING the system we perturb the system.

For a more detail explaination look here: everyscience.com/Chemistry/Physical/Quantum_Mechanics/a.1128.php

In any case it does not mean the particle is everyewhere at the same time. It only means we can only know the probability of where the particle is.

Also:
The collaps make us lose all information we have on the speed (and momentum) of our particle.

Hence the more precisely we know the position of a particle the less precisely we know about its momentum and viceversa. This is the basic concept under the Heisenber Uncertanty Principle:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

 

[James_S_Saint]

I note your inability to actually lay out a logical argument that shows, without using -]knowledge/-] [observation] which has its foundations in scientific observations, that an infinite speed of light would entail the collapse of the concept of distance. You have claimed it, but that is not the same as showing why it must be so.

As tempting as it is for you to believe that “WE” know all things above all others and that “WE AM that WE AM”, the truth is that “‘WE’ is ignunt an ehagunt”, presumptuous, and lusting for unearned respect.

There is a world of Logicians out there that make your “WE” look like arrogant little children and naked apes.

Of course “WE” know that “ALL Logicians” know that “WE must ALWAYS” begin with an axiom. But what if that axiom is something extremely simple, something like merely an absolute void of nothingness? And from that, some truly intelligent person using merely logic derives how it is that the universe ever came to be. How would he ever explain it to a gathering of children and naked apes? I suspect they would misunderstand his explanation and presume he meant things that he never really said.

Trying to explain anything to those who already know that they already know is quite a task. When the explanation would take a lot of detail, a lot of time and concentration must be given. That’s why they had disciples who then couldn’t explain it to the others because none of the others wanted to take such time.

Prideful children are presumptuous. “That’s not what MY daddy says. You’re just stupid. No one is smarter than MY daddy.”

The only problem Man has ever had is trying to explain himself.

In effect, you are as a priest telling Newton that if he cannot at that moment explain the origin of life and the universe, then obviously his model is just naive heresy.

Trying to address that issue with a hostile child on a web forum would at very minimum be irresponsible, not to mention pointless. To write the proposed book, I expect to spend months trying to figure out how to word things such that even the children can grasp what is being said. I expect to have to use pictures and probably a DVD with motion pictures so as to display multiple influences converging in different ways such as to form the different things of which people have already become aware. Currently I am writing a program that simulates a region of space wherein particles form merely from waves of affectance (energy to Science).

But interestingly, probability has nothing to do with any of it. Things are the way they are for exact reasons. The fact that YOU don’t see the reasons is simply testimony to your ignorance. The fact that you think that you know what all people do or do not know is testimony to your arrogance.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m surprised someone hasn’t compared anybody to Hitler yet…

Seriously, guys, if you wanna pick a fight, do it the right way, and go stir up the Orthodox against the Catholics like everybody else.

Here’s my conclusion based on empirical evidence: there’s nothing about religion, politics, sports, or physics that’s inherently controversial – it’s the internet that turns us into fiends!

How about this; in string theory, there are no particles, just strings – discuss [braces for thrown furniture].

Haha…

And “brane strings” are just more quantum fantasy and superstition in an attempt to give credence to ego.

 

[James_S_Saint]

This is because by MEASURING the system we perturb the system.

An excellent explanation. And we “perturb” the system because of our only known means of measuring it at that time which was “destructive”.

Using entanglement methods, we can become certain of the uncertain because we no longer have to disturb what it was that was being measured. We can measure something known to be identical instead. Thus the “uncertainty principle” is foiled. But at least they merely called it a “principle” and not a “LAW” as they did with thermodynamics.

 

[Ismael]

So you think that when a photon lands on a leaf, it races around at the speed of light throughout the leaf and that’s why they glow green at night?

There are fundamentally 2 types of particles: fermions (like quarks and electrons) and bosons.

In simple words fermions compose matter (quarks and electrons are the building blocks of atoms) while bosons are ‘exchange particle’ … in very simple words they “carry” the four fundamental forces around.

Photons “carry” the exchange interactions in the electromagnetic force (forces that arise from charges objects such as electrons that can give rise to electrical and magnetic fields).

When a photon lands and is absorbed by a particle (eg an electron) the photon is ‘destroyes’ and the particle gains energy equal to the energy of the photon.

So the photon is never at rest, as stated above, but his energy is transfered to the particle that absorbs it.

The same happens for W and Z bosons in weak force interactions.
Unlike the photon, who has zero rest mass, these bosons do have ‘rest mass’ and travel significantly slower than photonsm, but like photons the cannot be ‘at rest’.

 

[Ismael]

An excellent explanation. And we “perturb” the system because of our only known means of measuring it at that time which was “destructive”.

Using entanglement methods, we can become certain of the uncertain because we no longer have to disturb what it was that was being measured. We can measure something known to be identical instead. Thus the “uncertainty principle” is foiled. But at least they merely called it a “principle” and not a “LAW” as they did with thermodynamics.

Uhm… I do not think that the Uncertainty principle is foiled at all.

The only way to know something about a systerm is to measure it and you have to choose what you tant to know: position or momentum.

The only way to know both is to set up a vast amount of equal systems and measure them all.

I do not see why you have such problem with quantum physics though… it does not really affect any religious belifef (not Catholicism anyway).

 

[James_S_Saint]

There are fundamentally 2 types of particles: fermions (like quarks and electrons) and bosons.

In simple words fermions compose matter (quarks and electrons are the building blocks of atoms) while bosons are ‘exchange particle’ … in very simple words they “carry” the four fundamental forces around.

Photons “carry” the exchange interactions in the electromagnetic force (forces that arise from charges objects such as electrons that can give rise to electrical and magnetic fields).

When a photon lands and is absorbed by a particle (eg an electron) the photon is ‘destroyes’ and the particle gains energy equal to the energy of the photon.

So the photon is never at rest, as stated above, but his energy is transfered to the particle that absorbs it.

The same happens for W and Z bosons in weak force interactions.
Unlike the photon, who has zero rest mass, these bosons do have ‘rest mass’ and travel significantly slower than photonsm, but like photons the cannot be ‘at rest’.

I already explained that. The photon yields to the over all mass of the object.

But what do you think you get when you destroy a hadron, boson, fermion, quark,…?

Of what were they formed?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I do not see why you have such problem with quantum physics though… it does not really affect any religious belifef (not Catholicism anyway).

Quantum “physics” is a religion based on randomness and the lack of what you call “God”.

 

[Thing]

So a photon is a wave of energy. Or all waves are energy. Waves need to pass through some type of medium. So in between, for example, the sun and me sitting in my sun-chair there is some type of medium to carry this energy wave.

If someone tells me it an electric field or suchlike could you model an electric field in 3 dimensions and/or tell me what *it *is made of, and so on and so on.

 

[Ismael]

I already explained that. The photon yields to the over all mass of the object.

Yes but “mass” in this case is the sum of the proper mass (which reacts to gravity) and the overall energy of the object. It;s called the ‘relativistic mass’

you well know this formula: E=m*c^2… if we would equate c=1 (just a simple change in units is enogh!) we would obtain E=m…

But what do you think you get when you destroy a hadron, boson, fermion, quark,…?

Of what were they formed?

If you have an electron and this electron ‘decays’ to a lower anergy level, a photon is created and vice versa.

This is not creation ex nihilo, however. The photon is created out of the energy that the electron loses.

 

[Ismael]

So a photon is a wave of energy. Or all waves are energy. Waves need to pass through some type of medium. So in between, for example, the sun and me sitting in my sun-chair there is some type of medium to carry this energy wave.

All waves (eg sound waves) carry energy.

Photons (and other subatomic or fundamental particles) are not exactly waves and are not exactly particles… but they exibit characteristics of BOTH.

If someone tells me it an electric field or suchlike could you model an electric field in 3 dimensions and/or tell me what *it *is made of, and so on and so on.

Yes… it’s basically also ‘made of photons’… Although the formal description of it is quite complex. We are entering here in the realm of Quantum Field Theory and Electro-quantum dynamics.