Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381356 > unrolled thread

Waves - fundamental or emergent ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:15 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:23 -0700
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:20 -0500
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:34 -0700
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:01 -0500
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:55 -0700
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:55 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:58 -0500
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:54 -0700
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:03 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 03:21 -0700
                  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 11:55 -0500
                    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:25 -0700
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:05 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-13 21:10 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:02 -0700
                  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 12:45 +1000
                    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:25 -0700
                    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:31 -0700
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 16:24 +1000
                        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:13 -0400
                          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:40 +1000
                        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 02:44 -0700
                          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:11 -0700
                            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:07 -0700
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:15 -0500
                    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:27 -0400
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:42 +1000
                        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-16 06:39 +0200
                          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-16 18:43 +1000
                            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-16 05:57 -0700
                      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:19 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:10 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:45 -0700
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-12 06:45 +0200
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-14 04:24 +0200
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:52 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? bruntlybunky <bruntlybunky@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 15:12 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#381604

On 04/14/2016 02:24 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14/04/2016 1:31 PM, Y wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:45:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>> wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of
>>>>>>> this today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an
>>>>>>> electron gun at a double slit, where there is an
>>>>>>> electron-sensitive screen behind that records where the
>>>>>>> electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the
>>>>>>> word "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be
>>>>>>> no change in the statements. (Or, for that matter, you can
>>>>>>> substitute "proton" or "pion" or "oxygen molecule" or
>>>>>>> "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises
>>>>>>> is an indicator of the wavelike properties of the
>>>>>>> electron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
>>>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
>>>>>> hitting the screen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one
>>>>> per hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just
>>>> are a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of
>>>> wave interference, what we have is a distribution ?
>>>
>>> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying
>>> to construct a different model. If it's different, it must make
>>> different predictions about the results of measurements, or it will
>>> be mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you
>>> can show that the current model does not correctly predict the
>>> results of some measurements. That would require some actual
>>> measurements to be done.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> The predictions aren't exactly reliable in terms of knowledge are
>> they ? If probabilistic predictions were knowledge, then casinos all
>> around the world would be out of business.
>
> So far as we can tell, the probabilities given by quantum mechanics are
> as much information as exists - the universe itself doesn't know where
> the electron will be detected before it happens.

So since probability is all you have so far, you conclude that 
probability is all that one can EVER have! I presume you used your 
superpowers to make this determination.

> OK, so you'd prefer to be able to predict exactly where the electron
> will land, but that's a philosophical point of view that the universe is
> not obliged to subscribe to.

Nor it is obliged to follow your fantasies and speculations which you 
admit are such. Yet, why is it that "modern" physics likes to present 
these speculations as if they were "Fact". That is totally anti-science. 
No theory is fact. Scientific consensus means nothing.


> In the EPR thought experiment, Einstein et. al. sought to show that
> quantum mechanics was incomplete - that there were properties that
> existed in the world that quantum mechanics left out. It turned out,
> after a considerable time, that their argument was flawed, as Bell
> demonstrated.
>
> Until you can show that there really are omitted properties, such as the
> eventual position of an electron, it's just speculation.

So you just believe that relativity is bogus and the old "action at a 
distance" theory is the correct one for QM. Well, that may be your 
religion but it isn't science.

The obvious fact is that in these matters there is a gigantic sea of 
human ignorance out there and simply talking loudly with total 
conviction really doesn't substitute for actual science.


> Sylvia.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381607

On 14/04/2016 6:13 PM, benj wrote:
> On 04/14/2016 02:24 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14/04/2016 1:31 PM, Y wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:45:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of
>>>>>>>> this today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an
>>>>>>>> electron gun at a double slit, where there is an
>>>>>>>> electron-sensitive screen behind that records where the
>>>>>>>> electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the
>>>>>>>> word "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be
>>>>>>>> no change in the statements. (Or, for that matter, you can
>>>>>>>> substitute "proton" or "pion" or "oxygen molecule" or
>>>>>>>> "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises
>>>>>>>> is an indicator of the wavelike properties of the
>>>>>>>> electron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
>>>>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
>>>>>>> hitting the screen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one
>>>>>> per hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just
>>>>> are a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of
>>>>> wave interference, what we have is a distribution ?
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying
>>>> to construct a different model. If it's different, it must make
>>>> different predictions about the results of measurements, or it will
>>>> be mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you
>>>> can show that the current model does not correctly predict the
>>>> results of some measurements. That would require some actual
>>>> measurements to be done.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> The predictions aren't exactly reliable in terms of knowledge are
>>> they ? If probabilistic predictions were knowledge, then casinos all
>>> around the world would be out of business.
>>
>> So far as we can tell, the probabilities given by quantum mechanics are
>> as much information as exists - the universe itself doesn't know where
>> the electron will be detected before it happens.
>
> So since probability is all you have so far, you conclude that
> probability is all that one can EVER have! I presume you used your
> superpowers to make this determination.

I said "So far as we can tell."

There is nothing to indicate that there's more information to be had. 
Experiments might ultimately show otherwise, but they haven't yet. Until 
we have such evidence, there is no basis for constructing a model.
>
>> OK, so you'd prefer to be able to predict exactly where the electron
>> will land, but that's a philosophical point of view that the universe is
>> not obliged to subscribe to.
>
> Nor it is obliged to follow your fantasies and speculations which you
> admit are such. Yet, why is it that "modern" physics likes to present
> these speculations as if they were "Fact". That is totally anti-science.
> No theory is fact. Scientific consensus means nothing.
>
>
>> In the EPR thought experiment, Einstein et. al. sought to show that
>> quantum mechanics was incomplete - that there were properties that
>> existed in the world that quantum mechanics left out. It turned out,
>> after a considerable time, that their argument was flawed, as Bell
>> demonstrated.
>>
>> Until you can show that there really are omitted properties, such as the
>> eventual position of an electron, it's just speculation.
>
> So you just believe that relativity is bogus and the old "action at a
> distance" theory is the correct one for QM. Well, that may be your
> religion but it isn't science.

I haven't said that.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381611

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 4:24:13 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14/04/2016 1:31 PM, Y wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:45:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
> >> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of
> >>>>>> this today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an
> >>>>>> electron gun at a double slit, where there is an
> >>>>>> electron-sensitive screen behind that records where the
> >>>>>> electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the
> >>>>>> word "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be
> >>>>>> no change in the statements. (Or, for that matter, you can
> >>>>>> substitute "proton" or "pion" or "oxygen molecule" or
> >>>>>> "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises
> >>>>>> is an indicator of the wavelike properties of the
> >>>>>> electron.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
> >>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
> >>>>> hitting the screen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one
> >>>> per hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just
> >>> are a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of
> >>> wave interference, what we have is a distribution ?
> >>
> >> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying
> >> to construct a different model. If it's different, it must make
> >> different predictions about the results of measurements, or it will
> >> be mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model
> >> at all.
> >>
> >> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you
> >> can show that the current model does not correctly predict the
> >> results of some measurements. That would require some actual
> >> measurements to be done.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > The predictions aren't exactly reliable in terms of knowledge are
> > they ? If probabilistic predictions were knowledge, then casinos all
> > around the world would be out of business.
> 
> So far as we can tell, the probabilities given by quantum mechanics are 
> as much information as exists - the universe itself doesn't know where 
> the electron will be detected before it happens.
> 
> OK, so you'd prefer to be able to predict exactly where the electron 
> will land, but that's a philosophical point of view that the universe is 
> not obliged to subscribe to.
> 
> In the EPR thought experiment, Einstein et. al. sought to show that 
> quantum mechanics was incomplete - that there were properties that 
> existed in the world that quantum mechanics left out. It turned out, 
> after a considerable time, that their argument was flawed, as Bell 
> demonstrated.
> 
> Until you can show that there really are omitted properties, such as the 
> eventual position of an electron, it's just speculation.
> 
> Sylvia.

But surely if by making apparatus changes we can change the distribution, repeatably, allowing us to make more accurate predictions about where the electron lands (depending on locations of apparatus). By adding or removing observers we can guide or change their paths, and eventually determine where an electron will be more likely to land (as with Galton board) and changing the locations of the pegs. 

It's about controlling outcomes at the end of the day, since controlling these outcomes will be what makes something a useful technology for information transfer. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381613

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:44:21 PM UTC+10, Y wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 4:24:13 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 14/04/2016 1:31 PM, Y wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:45:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of
> > >>>>>> this today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an
> > >>>>>> electron gun at a double slit, where there is an
> > >>>>>> electron-sensitive screen behind that records where the
> > >>>>>> electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the
> > >>>>>> word "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be
> > >>>>>> no change in the statements. (Or, for that matter, you can
> > >>>>>> substitute "proton" or "pion" or "oxygen molecule" or
> > >>>>>> "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sure.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises
> > >>>>>> is an indicator of the wavelike properties of the
> > >>>>>> electron.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
> > >>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
> > >>>>> hitting the screen.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one
> > >>>> per hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sylvia.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just
> > >>> are a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of
> > >>> wave interference, what we have is a distribution ?
> > >>
> > >> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying
> > >> to construct a different model. If it's different, it must make
> > >> different predictions about the results of measurements, or it will
> > >> be mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model
> > >> at all.
> > >>
> > >> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you
> > >> can show that the current model does not correctly predict the
> > >> results of some measurements. That would require some actual
> > >> measurements to be done.
> > >>
> > >> Sylvia.
> > >
> > > The predictions aren't exactly reliable in terms of knowledge are
> > > they ? If probabilistic predictions were knowledge, then casinos all
> > > around the world would be out of business.
> > 
> > So far as we can tell, the probabilities given by quantum mechanics are 
> > as much information as exists - the universe itself doesn't know where 
> > the electron will be detected before it happens.
> > 
> > OK, so you'd prefer to be able to predict exactly where the electron 
> > will land, but that's a philosophical point of view that the universe is 
> > not obliged to subscribe to.
> > 
> > In the EPR thought experiment, Einstein et. al. sought to show that 
> > quantum mechanics was incomplete - that there were properties that 
> > existed in the world that quantum mechanics left out. It turned out, 
> > after a considerable time, that their argument was flawed, as Bell 
> > demonstrated.
> > 
> > Until you can show that there really are omitted properties, such as the 
> > eventual position of an electron, it's just speculation.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> But surely if by making apparatus changes we can change the distribution, repeatably, allowing us to make more accurate predictions about where the electron lands (depending on locations of apparatus). By adding or removing observers we can guide or change their paths, and eventually determine where an electron will be more likely to land (as with Galton board) and changing the locations of the pegs. 
> 
> It's about controlling outcomes at the end of the day, since controlling these outcomes will be what makes something a useful technology for information transfer. 
> 
> -y

Quantum orchestration.. 

Guiding outcomes towards greater predictability in distribution via collecting outcomes based on locations and numbers of observers. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381625

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:11:36 AM UTC-4, Y wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:44:21 PM UTC+10, Y wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 4:24:13 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > On 14/04/2016 1:31 PM, Y wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:45:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
> > > >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of
> > > >>>>>> this today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an
> > > >>>>>> electron gun at a double slit, where there is an
> > > >>>>>> electron-sensitive screen behind that records where the
> > > >>>>>> electrons land. In what follows, you can substitute the
> > > >>>>>> word "photon" for "electron" everywhere, and there would be
> > > >>>>>> no change in the statements. (Or, for that matter, you can
> > > >>>>>> substitute "proton" or "pion" or "oxygen molecule" or
> > > >>>>>> "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Sure.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises
> > > >>>>>> is an indicator of the wavelike properties of the
> > > >>>>>> electron.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
> > > >>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
> > > >>>>> hitting the screen.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one
> > > >>>> per hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sylvia.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just
> > > >>> are a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of
> > > >>> wave interference, what we have is a distribution ?
> > > >>
> > > >> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying
> > > >> to construct a different model. If it's different, it must make
> > > >> different predictions about the results of measurements, or it will
> > > >> be mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model
> > > >> at all.
> > > >>
> > > >> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you
> > > >> can show that the current model does not correctly predict the
> > > >> results of some measurements. That would require some actual
> > > >> measurements to be done.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sylvia.
> > > >
> > > > The predictions aren't exactly reliable in terms of knowledge are
> > > > they ? If probabilistic predictions were knowledge, then casinos all
> > > > around the world would be out of business.
> > > 
> > > So far as we can tell, the probabilities given by quantum mechanics are 
> > > as much information as exists - the universe itself doesn't know where 
> > > the electron will be detected before it happens.
> > > 
> > > OK, so you'd prefer to be able to predict exactly where the electron 
> > > will land, but that's a philosophical point of view that the universe is 
> > > not obliged to subscribe to.
> > > 
> > > In the EPR thought experiment, Einstein et. al. sought to show that 
> > > quantum mechanics was incomplete - that there were properties that 
> > > existed in the world that quantum mechanics left out. It turned out, 
> > > after a considerable time, that their argument was flawed, as Bell 
> > > demonstrated.
> > > 
> > > Until you can show that there really are omitted properties, such as the 
> > > eventual position of an electron, it's just speculation.
> > > 
> > > Sylvia.
> > 
> > But surely if by making apparatus changes we can change the distribution, repeatably, allowing us to make more accurate predictions about where the electron lands (depending on locations of apparatus). By adding or removing observers we can guide or change their paths, and eventually determine where an electron will be more likely to land (as with Galton board) and changing the locations of the pegs. 
> > 
> > It's about controlling outcomes at the end of the day, since controlling these outcomes will be what makes something a useful technology for information transfer. 
> > 
> > -y
> 
> Quantum orchestration.. 
> 
> Guiding outcomes towards greater predictability in distribution via collecting outcomes based on locations and numbers of observers. 
> 
> -y

There is wiggle room to favor emergent if both the electron and the vacuum that the electron is in are given equal status for wave properties. Here a video that demonstrates this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381954

On 4/13/2016 10:31 PM, Y wrote:
> The predictions aren't exactly reliable in terms of knowledge are they ? If probabilistic predictions
> were knowledge, then casinos all around the world would be out of business.
>
> My father operates casinos. About the only reliable method of ensuring success is to slightly vary the
> balance of odds giving punters the illusion of possible success within a certain betting frame. Such
> as the 1/37 with a single 0, (European Roulette) where payouts of landing such are 35/1.
>
> I mean, is knowledge that isn't reliable even knowledge ?
>
> -y
>

People who are good gamblers work very well with probabilities, though 
this doesn't tell them much about whether they will win the *current* 
bet. But they will tell you they don't *need* to know with certainty the 
outcome of every bet. There are successful betting strategies; casinos 
make their business on the fact that most people don't use them, and 
they reserve the right to banish bettors who do use them.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381605

On 04/13/2016 10:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this
>>>>> today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an electron
>>>>> gun at a double slit, where there is an electron-sensitive
>>>>> screen behind that records where the electrons land. In what
>>>>> follows, you can substitute the word "photon" for "electron"
>>>>> everywhere, and there would be no change in the statements.
>>>>> (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion" or
>>>>> "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>>>>
>>>> Sure.
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is
>>>>> an indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
>>>>
>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
>>>> hitting the screen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one per
>>> hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are
>> a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave
>> interference, what we have is a distribution ?
>
> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to
> construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different
> predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be
> mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all.
>
> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can
> show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of
> some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be done.

So, if you can fire electrons (or photons) one at a time at one per hour 
and the pattern still shows then that means it's NOT an "interference 
pattern, right? What are the waves? What is "interfering" with what? 
It's a gigantic mess that people try to "explain" with some Lord of the 
Rings type fantasy.

Y is correct. Indeed the "pattern" that forms is in NO WAY an 
"interference" pattern. An interference pattern based on waves is a 
continuous function. The thing you are measuring is a discrete 
statistical ensemble. You can only get it to look like interference once 
you convert the ensemble to a continuous differentiable function. In 
other words it's all one gigantic wank.

And yet you try to pass this nonsense off as "fact". You aren't thinking 
about these problems, you are only parroting religious dogma.

"Modern" physics is at the end of it's rope! It's current metaparadigm 
is no longer adequate to agree with known reality. Attempting to squeeze 
reality into that incorrect set of assumptions will not result in 
anything but confusion.
-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381608

On 14/04/2016 6:27 PM, benj wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 10:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 10:02 PM, Y wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2016 12:54 PM, Y wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:58:53 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to recast this the way that scientists think of this
>>>>>> today. Let's take the case of electrons fired from an electron
>>>>>> gun at a double slit, where there is an electron-sensitive
>>>>>> screen behind that records where the electrons land. In what
>>>>>> follows, you can substitute the word "photon" for "electron"
>>>>>> everywhere, and there would be no change in the statements.
>>>>>> (Or, for that matter, you can substitute "proton" or "pion" or
>>>>>> "oxygen molecule" or "carbon atom" or "neutrino".)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that there is an interference pattern that arises is
>>>>>> an indicator of the wavelike properties of the electron.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not of single electrons though - that wavelike behavior only
>>>>> 'emerges' and becomes more apparent with the more electrons
>>>>> hitting the screen.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can fire the electrons at the screen at the rate of one per
>>>> hour. Eventually, the interference pattern still shows.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are
>>> a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave
>>> interference, what we have is a distribution ?
>>
>> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to
>> construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different
>> predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be
>> mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all.
>>
>> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can
>> show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of
>> some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be
>> done.
>
> So, if you can fire electrons (or photons) one at a time at one per hour
> and the pattern still shows then that means it's NOT an "interference
> pattern, right? What are the waves? What is "interfering" with what?
> It's a gigantic mess that people try to "explain" with some Lord of the
> Rings type fantasy.

There is interference, but the waves that interfere exist in the 
mathematics of quantum mechanics.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381758

Am 14.04.2016 10:42, schrieb Sylvia Else:

>>>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are
>>>> a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave
>>>> interference, what we have is a distribution ?
>>>
>>> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to
>>> construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different
>>> predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be
>>> mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all.
>>>
>>> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can
>>> show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of
>>> some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be
>>> done.
>>
>> So, if you can fire electrons (or photons) one at a time at one per hour
>> and the pattern still shows then that means it's NOT an "interference
>> pattern, right? What are the waves? What is "interfering" with what?
>> It's a gigantic mess that people try to "explain" with some Lord of the
>> Rings type fantasy.
>
> There is interference, but the waves that interfere exist in the
> mathematics of quantum mechanics.
>

Mathematics is not 'existing', hence no real object could eventually 
exist in it.

Mathematics is a human artefact, by which we human beings describe 
certain phenomena found in nature.

Whether or nature does itself utilise similar methods as we use in our 
calculations, this is a question of debate.

But at first we cannot assume mathematical principles in natural 
phenomena, unless we understand the phenomena in the first place.

Die occurrence of statistical patterns in double slit experiments show 
several features of particles, which do not really fit to our 
understanding of the term 'particle'.

So individual particles are not closed entities, but fill space (at 
least the space between two slits).

This is similar to the 'path integral method', which claims, that  a 
quantum state (particle) is a 'sum of all possible path'.

The particle actually goes through both slits and therefore could 
interfere with itself.

The pattern would require another assumption. This pattern could emerge 
from statistically distributed arrival of the particle at the barrier.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381766

On 16/04/2016 2:39 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.04.2016 10:42, schrieb Sylvia Else:
>
>>>>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are
>>>>> a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave
>>>>> interference, what we have is a distribution ?
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to
>>>> construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different
>>>> predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be
>>>> mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all.
>>>>
>>>> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can
>>>> show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of
>>>> some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be
>>>> done.
>>>
>>> So, if you can fire electrons (or photons) one at a time at one per hour
>>> and the pattern still shows then that means it's NOT an "interference
>>> pattern, right? What are the waves? What is "interfering" with what?
>>> It's a gigantic mess that people try to "explain" with some Lord of the
>>> Rings type fantasy.
>>
>> There is interference, but the waves that interfere exist in the
>> mathematics of quantum mechanics.
>>
>
> Mathematics is not 'existing', hence no real object could eventually
> exist in it.
>
> Mathematics is a human artefact, by which we human beings describe
> certain phenomena found in nature.
>
> Whether or nature does itself utilise similar methods as we use in our
> calculations, this is a question of debate.

It's philosophy, akin to the noise made by trees falling in the forest 
when there's no one there to hear them.

We use mathematics to model the behaviour of the universe. It's not 
possible to access the reality beneath the model, because if one tries, 
one just ends up with another model.

As far as physics goes, once we have a correct model, the job is done. 
Philosophers may seek to peer deeper, but they can never know whether 
their speculations are correct.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381774

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 6:43:47 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16/04/2016 2:39 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 14.04.2016 10:42, schrieb Sylvia Else:
> >
> >>>>> Yes, but maybe it's not a wave doing this, but rather waves just are
> >>>>> a useful way to model what happens ? :) Maybe instead of wave
> >>>>> interference, what we have is a distribution ?
> >>>>
> >>>> You're trying to look beneath the model. Essentially, you're trying to
> >>>> construct a different model. If it's different, it must make different
> >>>> predictions about the results of measurements, or it will be
> >>>> mathematically equivalent, and not really be a different model at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> So what you're trying to do is an exercise in futility unless you can
> >>>> show that the current model does not correctly predict the results of
> >>>> some measurements. That would require some actual measurements to be
> >>>> done.
> >>>
> >>> So, if you can fire electrons (or photons) one at a time at one per hour
> >>> and the pattern still shows then that means it's NOT an "interference
> >>> pattern, right? What are the waves? What is "interfering" with what?
> >>> It's a gigantic mess that people try to "explain" with some Lord of the
> >>> Rings type fantasy.
> >>
> >> There is interference, but the waves that interfere exist in the
> >> mathematics of quantum mechanics.
> >>
> >
> > Mathematics is not 'existing', hence no real object could eventually
> > exist in it.
> >
> > Mathematics is a human artefact, by which we human beings describe
> > certain phenomena found in nature.
> >
> > Whether or nature does itself utilise similar methods as we use in our
> > calculations, this is a question of debate.
> 
> It's philosophy, akin to the noise made by trees falling in the forest 
> when there's no one there to hear them.
> 
> We use mathematics to model the behaviour of the universe. It's not 
> possible to access the reality beneath the model, because if one tries, 
> one just ends up with another model.
> 
> As far as physics goes, once we have a correct model, the job is done. 
> Philosophers may seek to peer deeper, but they can never know whether 
> their speculations are correct.
> 
> Sylvia.

Which is true. 

But then again, allot of philosophy seems to go into evaluating the outcomes of experiments in order to draw conclusions (such as those regarding wave-particle duality). 

If you could get a Galton Board to distribute a wave of marbles, depending on the configuration of the board, would you evaluate this outcome as the marbles behaving as a wave ?


Can it not be simply understood that a normal or Gaussian distribution is wave-like ?

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381955

On 4/14/2016 3:27 AM, benj wrote:
> So, if you can fire electrons (or photons) one at a time at one per hour
> and the pattern still shows then that means it's NOT an "interference
> pattern, right? What are the waves? What is "interfering" with what?
> It's a gigantic mess that people try to "explain" with some Lord of the
> Rings type fantasy.

Not really. The electron (or photon) is a quantum field. A quantum field 
can interfere with *itself*.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381504

Check this out... 

Interesting. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m4bxse2JEQ


-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381359

Reworded for better readability. 

I will propose a new description of a possible physical phenomena underpinning quantum systems in order to try and settle some differences and problems regarding particle-wave duality, as well as to draw inferences between the emergence of waves and entangled particles. It might be possible to test the hypothesis and find evidence for it. Existing experiments, such as the double slit may allow evaluations that would help to qualify this theory in the interim - It doesn't yet make any predictions as yet, so I'll build some math for it later. 

Let's call this phenomena or property of quantum systems a "non-particle entanglement coupling" which is a physical relationship existing between particles separated by some length of space. This coupling is of non-particle origin and acts along the shortest path between two particles which may be oscillating in a wave like fashion. This coupling causes particles to be attached together in some way across time and space and may be responsible for quantum entanglement as well as the emergence of waves.

We know that this coupling doesn't take the form of energy, as it might form FTL or 'instantaneous' relationships between photons which carry energy and momentum. Also, this coupling would be allowing particles of energy to work in groups 'as waves' and therefore, it would not be possible for energy to be forming these relationships between particles.

These couplings have a kind of elasticity to them, allowing them to be stretch or pulled, according to the energy carried through the wave. In this way, they would be analogous to the viscous coupling unit on the prop shaft of a 4wd vehicle. 

me (Y change) 	

1:23 AM (14 minutes ago)


In the dbl slit experiment, firing electrons, one every few seconds over the course of an hour or so, we can see an interference pattern emerging. Now, this interference pattern becomes more apparent with the more electrons we fire. One of the first things that may become apparent when watching the dbl slit experiment unfold, is that the interference pattern itself doesn't appear to emerge with the first electron, or even few, but as subsequent electrons hit the screen. The distribution indicates interfering waves. As this interference pattern becomes increasingly apparent with an increase in particles the wave like behavior of particle arrangements shows. This said, there seems to be something 'emergent' about the transition from particle to wave that comes with the inclusion of each new particle. It's almost as if the distribution is set out before any emission events. This would also depend on the arrangement of observers in the experiment. As we find, putting an observer near one of the slits collapses the 'wave-function', and appears to alter the coupling between particles in some way. 

It is possible that the wave unfolds as it does, because electrons have been entangled at the source. It is also possible that entanglement is causing the subsequent particle distribution as additional electrons gradually hit the screen. If this is so, delaying the periodic spacing between electron emissions which still lead to ave-like distribution patterns could indicate evidence for the entanglement couplings that I suggest may exist between particles. 


-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381416

Am 11.04.2016 17:45, schrieb Y:
> Reworded for better readability.
>
> I will propose a new description of a possible physical phenomena underpinning quantum systems in order to try and settle some differences and problems regarding particle-wave duality, as well as to draw inferences between the emergence of waves and entangled particles. It might be possible to test the hypothesis and find evidence for it. Existing experiments, such as the double slit may allow evaluations that would help to qualify this theory in the interim - It doesn't yet make any predictions as yet, so I'll build some math for it later.
>
> Let's call this phenomena or property of quantum systems a "non-particle entanglement coupling" which is a physical relationship existing between particles separated by some length of space. This coupling is of non-particle origin and acts along the shortest path between two particles which may be oscillating in a wave like fashion. This coupling causes particles to be attached together in some way across time and space and may be responsible for quantum entanglement as well as the emergence of waves.
>
> We know that this coupling doesn't take the form of energy, as it might form FTL or 'instantaneous' relationships between photons which carry energy and momentum. Also, this coupling would be allowing particles of energy to work in groups 'as waves' and therefore, it would not be possible for energy to be forming these relationships between particles.
>
> These couplings have a kind of elasticity to them, allowing them to be stretch or pulled, according to the energy carried through the wave. In this way, they would be analogous to the viscous coupling unit on the prop shaft of a 4wd vehicle.
>
> me (Y change) 	
>

My proposal for an appropriate name: spacetime.


This could be understood as 'real thing' and kind of elastic fluid.

More or less I think, that such a system is composed from nothing and 
consists of points with features.

The question, what that might bee, I have blanked out, but assumed its 
existence.

Now such a 'medium' of spacetime would allow to build things with it. 
And to the best of my knowledge the things we observe and call matter 
could be understood as 'structures of spacetime'.

These features, a point is assumed to have, could build forms like 
screws, knots or spheres. And such forms are, what we call particles.

E.g. a 'tri-foil-knot' could be linked to quarks. The 'foils' are the 
quarks and the knot itself represents the strong force.

Other forms are rotation waves. They spin in and out, because angular 
momentum is conserved. Such waves we call 'atoms'.


Actually I have written kind of book about this concept some years ago:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


(Since the number of readers is quite small till now, I would be happy 
to hear some comments.)


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381581

Am 12.04.2016 06:45, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>> These couplings have a kind of elasticity to them, allowing them to be
>> stretch or pulled, according to the energy carried through the wave.
>> In this way, they would be analogous to the viscous coupling unit on
>> the prop shaft of a 4wd vehicle.
>>
>> me (Y change)
>>
>
> My proposal for an appropriate name: spacetime.
>

How to create something elastic in spacetime????

It's a little tricky and goes like this:

if we have a single item somewhere. This item 'likes' to follow a 
straight timelike path. Along this path it stays an object, together as 
one piece and feels no acceleration.

If we have any inertial system without acceleration, we could assume it 
would be at rest and follows a timelike path only.

This definition of time is then specific to this particular object and 
'the universe' is centred around it.

Now this 'the universe' is defined 'relative' to this object and time in 
respect to that universe.

This would mean, 'the universe' is not the real thing, but a particular 
picture of the universe, a certain inertial observer rightfully has.

If now we 'grab' the axis of time and 'pull' it in any direction, the 
object is accelerated in respect to his personal universe.

This acceleration violates the 'wishes' of this object (to stay together 
in a timelike stable fashion), the object tends to pull the axis of time 
back to where its own axis of stability is.

It would depend on the strength of the pull, which influence is 
stronger: the acceleration or the binding forces of this object, to 
determine, who 'wins'.

If the object is very small and the forces that accelerate are strong, 
the object disintegrates.

Now: what makes objects 'want' to stay together?

We need to assume to general forces: expansion and contraction.

Such forces are inverses in respect to each other and create certain 
waves. These waves tend to stay together in roughly spherical patterns 
(->atoms), because it goes in and out around the imaginary axis of time.

The larger the object, the more tendency to contraction it has and 
swallows other waves from the environment.

Smaller waves could loose contact and 'roll away' and create, what we 
usually call waves (like e.g. light).

Larger object behave like 'cosmic vacuum cleaners' and suck stuff in 
(what we call gravity).

This would enable us to imagine, how it would look like, if we could 
turn the axis of time into another direction.

It is actually possible, but only against the resistance of the larger 
objects in the vicinity, since they dominate the 'battle' between 
expansion and contraction in their particular realm.

How 'stiff' the axis of time behaves against attempts to bent it, that 
is dependent on the larger objects.

If there is none, the object could fly into any direction and then would 
keep this direction without acceleration.

If there is a larger object (like in our case planet Earth), this would 
determine the direction of time, but could eventually be inertial itself.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381412

First, entanglement is basically another name for wave interference of the electromagnetic field but the electron or a subatomic particle cannot be represented with an electromagnetic field since induction is massless; therefore, if one thought about it for a little while but no one has to reach back into that conditioning and come up with the same excuse or find another word, such as, the ether, aether, diathermic medium, elastic fluid, elastic medium, dark matter, dark energy to describe the ether that does not exist.  Therefore, using that same method we get entanglement which is wave interference but is it not clear to see that electron and other such matter cannot be annihilated as implied by wave interference of entanglement.  Repeatively changing the name of something false does not make it true at least I would hope so because calling someone by another name does not make that person another person.  Using a lot of names for the same entity implies malfeasance.  How can people who are christain do this to me repeatively.  Do I not invoke the principle of Jesus himself?  Are you poor and extremely smart and handsome???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381972

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:15:59 AM UTC-5, Y wrote:
> Recently I've been giving some thought to the possibility of new type of physical phenomena, which may be difficult but possible to unveil. This phenomena might be of equal importance as energy. I will have to think of ways to generate evidence of this "thing", but I already have some ideas. 
> 
> So I will propose a new type of phenomena, in order to try and settle our differences and problems regarding particle-wave duality. I also think it might be possible to test the hypothesis and find evidence for it. We might even consider the implications of an existing experiment, namely the dbl slit, and evaluate that for the purposes of qualifying this theory in the interim - it doesn't yet make any predictions, so I'll build some math for it later. 
> 
> Let's call this phenomena or property of quantum systems a "non-particle entanglement coupling" which is a physical relationship existing between particles separated by some length of space that is of non-particle origin. This coupling causes particles to be attached together in some way across time and space and may be responsible for quantum entanglement as well as the emergence of waves.
> 
> We know that this coupling doesn't take the form of energy, as it might form FTL or 'instantaneous' relationships between particles. Also, this coupling would be allowing particles of energy to work in groups 'as waves' and therefore, it would not be possible for energy to be forming these relationships between particles.
> 
> These couplings have a kind of viscosity to them, allowing them to be stretch or pulled, according to the energy propagating through it.. In this way, they would be analogous to the viscous coupling unit on the prop shaft of a 4wd vehicle.
> 
> The first thing that comes to mind with the dbl slit experiment, is that the interference pattern itself doesn't appear to emerge with the first electron, or even few, but as subsequent electrons hit the screen, the distribution indicates interfering waves. As this interefernce becomes increasingly apparent, there seems to be something 'emergent' about the transition from particle to wave.  
> 
> But the thing that I'm questioning, since these electrons have presumably been entangled at the source, is it possible that entanglement is causing the subsequent distribution as additional additional electrons hit the screen ? If this is so, the delayed outcome of waves apparent in the interferometry could indicate evidence for the entanglement couplings I suggest that exist between particles. 
> 
> 
> -y

waves are conservation of anarchy theory of realtor know about not public yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web