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

Groups > sci.physics > #535722 > unrolled thread

The Original Double Slit Experiment

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Original Double Slit Experiment Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 16:01 -0600
    Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-27 10:24 +1100
      Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 17:51 -0600
      Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Lester Thorpe <lt11@thorpe.info> - 2015-11-27 05:03 +0000
        Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 01:19 -0500
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-27 02:09 -0800
            Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 11:25 -0500
              Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Lester Thorpe <lt11@thorpe.info> - 2015-11-27 16:42 +0000
            Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 09:42 -0800
        Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-27 20:15 +1100
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 01:29 -0800
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 05:16 -0500
          Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 13:23 -0500
            Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 10:30 -0800
              Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 12:40 -0600
                Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 13:28 -0800
                  Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 15:38 -0600
                  Re: Now, instead of "From: Ross A. Finlayson", I see "RossBot". benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 22:28 -0500
              Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 20:42 -0500
          Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 13:26 -0500
            Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 12:29 -0800
              Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 20:54 -0500
      Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 22:54 -0800
      Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 10:41 -0800
        Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-28 15:38 +1100
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 03:27 -0500
          Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 10:33 -0800
        Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 10:32 -0800
    Re: The Original Double Slit Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 10:34 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#535722 — The Original Double Slit Experiment

The Original Double Slit Experiment
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0

> Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really is. But
> just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking experiment answered
> the question that had occupied physicists for centuries. Is light
> made up of waves or particles?
>
> The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as Young's
> Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is actually a
> simplification of a series of experiments on light conducted by
> Young. In a completely darkened room, Young allowed a thin beam of
> sunlight to pass through an aperture on his window and onto two
> narrow, closely spaced openings (the double slit). This sunlight then
> cast a shadow onto the wall behind the apparatus. Young found that
> the light diffracted as it passed through the slits, and then
> interfered with itself, created a series of light and dark spots.
> Since the sunlight consists of all colours of the rainbow, these
> colours were also visible in the projected spots. Young concluded
> that light consist of waves and not particles since only waves were
> known to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
> in his experiment.
>
> The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a laser
> and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment was conducted
> in 1801 I have always thought that it should be possible to recreate
> the experiment using sunlight and household materials. That is
> basically what I did here. I will show the interference pattern I
> observed with my homemade double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to
> use a manufactured double slit here to ensure that the pattern was
> impressive for observers at the beach.
>
> Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos, Glen for
> filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus. Thanks also to the
> Royal Society for allowing us to view the original manuscript of
> Young's lecture and the University of Sydney for lending the double
> slits.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#535744

On 27/11/2015 9:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> The Original Double Slit Experiment
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
>
>> Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really is. But
>> just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking experiment answered
>> the question that had occupied physicists for centuries. Is light
>> made up of waves or particles?
>>
>> The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as Young's
>> Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is actually a
>> simplification of a series of experiments on light conducted by
>> Young. In a completely darkened room, Young allowed a thin beam of
>> sunlight to pass through an aperture on his window and onto two
>> narrow, closely spaced openings (the double slit). This sunlight then
>> cast a shadow onto the wall behind the apparatus. Young found that
>> the light diffracted as it passed through the slits, and then
>> interfered with itself, created a series of light and dark spots.
>> Since the sunlight consists of all colours of the rainbow, these
>> colours were also visible in the projected spots. Young concluded
>> that light consist of waves and not particles since only waves were
>> known to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
>> in his experiment.
>>
>> The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a laser
>> and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment was conducted
>> in 1801 I have always thought that it should be possible to recreate
>> the experiment using sunlight and household materials. That is
>> basically what I did here. I will show the interference pattern I
>> observed with my homemade double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to
>> use a manufactured double slit here to ensure that the pattern was
>> impressive for observers at the beach.
>>
>> Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos, Glen for
>> filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus. Thanks also to the
>> Royal Society for allowing us to view the original manuscript of
>> Young's lecture and the University of Sydney for lending the double
>> slits.

It was a nice example of how an experiment can seem conclusive, only to 
be shown much later to be capable of a different interpretation.

The subsequent realisation that electrons could be made to do much the 
same thing indicated that while the experiment showed that waves were 
involved, it didn't necessarily show that light consisted of a wave.

Now, the group's kooks will no doubt jump on this as proving that 
science was wrong. They would be mistaken. Experiments only verify; they 
don't prove. The double slit experiment was, and remains, consistent 
with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens to be consistent 
with other possibilities as well, which wasn't obvious at the time.

Sylvia.

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

#535755

On 11/26/15 5:24 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 9:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> The Original Double Slit Experiment
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
>>
>>> Light is so common that we rarely think about what it really is. But
>>> just over two hundred years ago, a groundbreaking experiment answered
>>> the question that had occupied physicists for centuries. Is light
>>> made up of waves or particles?
>>>
>>> The experiment was conducted by Thomas Young and is known as Young's
>>> Double Slit Experiment. This famous experiment is actually a
>>> simplification of a series of experiments on light conducted by
>>> Young. In a completely darkened room, Young allowed a thin beam of
>>> sunlight to pass through an aperture on his window and onto two
>>> narrow, closely spaced openings (the double slit). This sunlight then
>>> cast a shadow onto the wall behind the apparatus. Young found that
>>> the light diffracted as it passed through the slits, and then
>>> interfered with itself, created a series of light and dark spots.
>>> Since the sunlight consists of all colours of the rainbow, these
>>> colours were also visible in the projected spots. Young concluded
>>> that light consist of waves and not particles since only waves were
>>> known to diffract and interfere in exactly the manner that light did
>>> in his experiment.
>>>
>>> The way I have always seen this experiment performed is with a laser
>>> and a manufactured double slit but since the experiment was conducted
>>> in 1801 I have always thought that it should be possible to recreate
>>> the experiment using sunlight and household materials. That is
>>> basically what I did here. I will show the interference pattern I
>>> observed with my homemade double slit on 2Veritasium but I chose to
>>> use a manufactured double slit here to ensure that the pattern was
>>> impressive for observers at the beach.
>>>
>>> Special thanks to Henry, Brady, and Rupert for their cameos, Glen for
>>> filming and Josh for helping create the apparatus. Thanks also to the
>>> Royal Society for allowing us to view the original manuscript of
>>> Young's lecture and the University of Sydney for lending the double
>>> slits.
>
> It was a nice example of how an experiment can seem conclusive, only to
> be shown much later to be capable of a different interpretation.
>
> The subsequent realisation that electrons could be made to do much the
> same thing indicated that while the experiment showed that waves were
> involved, it didn't necessarily show that light consisted of a wave.
>
> Now, the group's kooks will no doubt jump on this as proving that
> science was wrong. They would be mistaken. Experiments only verify; they
> don't prove. The double slit experiment was, and remains, consistent
> with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens to be consistent
> with other possibilities as well, which wasn't obvious at the time.
>
> Sylvia.
>

   Thanks.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#535838

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:24:26 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

> The double slit experiment was, and remains, consistent 
> with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens to be consistent 
> with other possibilities as well
> 

What are those other possibilities?

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

#535843

On 11/27/2015 12:03 AM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:24:26 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> The double slit experiment was, and remains, consistent
>> with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens to be consistent
>> with other possibilities as well

The double slit experiment is NOT consistent with the idea that light is 
a wave without some serious adjustment to wave theory.

And the double slit (or any diffraction) is NOT consistent with other 
possibilities as well.

> What are those other possibilities?

Such as light as "photon" "particles".

Neither idea works. Hence light is still a mystery no matter what people 
here and elsewhere have told you.



-- 

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

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

#535861

Benj wrote...
> The double slit experiment is NOT consistent with the idea that light is a wave without some serious adjustment to wave theory.

Interesting point here.
Although its convenient for analogy and to see if other types of waves like water waves .
can show similar characteristics. I agree with you that the idea that light is a wave doesnt
quite work either. For instance if light needs to redshift without expansion, you cant
have light as a wave. Waves dont work if the frequency is observed to decay.
I think its used as a central argument against tired light used by BB theorists.

Thats why I think that light isnt a magnetic and an electric component as
Maxwell(?) originally proposed.Its just a magnetic field oscillating at
any point in the light beam. Responding to an adjacent oscillating
magnetic field and inducing an adjacent oscillation in turn.
Then you can explain redshift without having a rigid "wave" travelling
through space.

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

#535910

On 11/27/2015 05:09 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Benj wrote...
>> The double slit experiment is NOT consistent with the idea that light is a wave without some serious adjustment to wave theory.
>
> Interesting point here.
> Although its convenient for analogy and to see if other types of waves like water waves .
> can show similar characteristics. I agree with you that the idea that light is a wave doesnt
> quite work either. For instance if light needs to redshift without expansion, you cant
> have light as a wave. Waves dont work if the frequency is observed to decay.
> I think its used as a central argument against tired light used by BB theorists.

This is correct. Waves by the very definition of the phenomena REQUIRE a 
medium. And the Medium has a certain characteristic, namely that a 
"stress" applied to one point is transmitted to the next point and so on 
creating the phenomena of energy propagation.

You are correct that "Tired light" is bogus. However, so is the Big Bang 
which interprets red shift as velocity. In truth it's a geometric thing 
associated with multiple dimensions.

> Thats why I think that light isnt a magnetic and an electric component as
> Maxwell(?) originally proposed.Its just a magnetic field oscillating at
> any point in the light beam. Responding to an adjacent oscillating
> magnetic field and inducing an adjacent oscillation in turn.
> Then you can explain redshift without having a rigid "wave" travelling
> through space.


This isn't too far afield because by Huygens each point in space becomes 
a new source of waves. But then that is the above definition of a 
wave-propagating medium, isn't it? Hence light waves (radiation) can be 
replaced at any point in space by equivalent current sources (which 
create both electric and magnetic fields) and produce waves propagating 
outward beyond that equivalent source identical to what was there from 
the original source. Is an important principle of optics and E&M.


-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#535919

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:25:06 -0500, benj wrote:

> 
> This is correct. Waves by the very definition of the phenomena REQUIRE a 
> medium.
>

This in incorrect.  Only material waves require a medium.

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

#535929

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:09:24 AM UTC-8, jay moseley wrote:
> Benj wrote...
> > The double slit experiment is NOT consistent with the idea that light is a wave without some serious adjustment to wave theory.
> 
> Interesting point here.
> Although its convenient for analogy and to see if other types of waves like water waves .
> can show similar characteristics. I agree with you that the idea that light is a wave doesnt
> quite work either. For instance if light needs to redshift without expansion, you cant
> have light as a wave. Waves dont work if the frequency is observed to decay.
> I think its used as a central argument against tired light used by BB theorists.
> 
> Thats why I think that light isnt a magnetic and an electric component as
> Maxwell(?) originally proposed.Its just a magnetic field oscillating at
> any point in the light beam. Responding to an adjacent oscillating
> magnetic field and inducing an adjacent oscillation in turn.
> Then you can explain redshift without having a rigid "wave" travelling
> through space.

Light's a wave (a wave-form) 
through space (the Dirac 
positronic sea or vacuum of 
space or aether) just fine.

There are wave optics and 
geometric optics of light.

Radiation often includes 
light as well as particles 
(light is massless, some 
ionizing radiation has 
particles, those travel 
near c, for some of those 
they are the emitter or 
headlights of the radiation).

Light's waves are not necessarily 
the same as fluid's waves 
mathematically - the very 
mathematics of a wave and 
point and boundary interactions 
and interfaces thereof may be 
any of simpler, richer, or 
combined or opposite in 
expectation of usual "travelling 
wave" models or "standing wave" 
or the soliton.

It kind of remains to be figured 
out what all these variations on 
what a sinusoidal wave would be 
for the physical interpretation 
and for suitable effect in the 
region of the wave, here its 
"light-cone".

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

#535854

On 27/11/2015 4:03 PM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:24:26 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> The double slit experiment was, and remains, consistent
>> with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens to be consistent
>> with other possibilities as well
>>
>
> What are those other possibilities?
>
>

It's consistent with a particle model (photons) where the probability 
that a photon is found at a point is given by the math of quantum 
mechanics. The waves are still there, but they're in the math, not the 
light.

Sylvia.

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

#535856

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 1:15:41 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 4:03 PM, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:24:26 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> >> The double slit experiment was, and remains, consistent
> >> with the idea that light is a wave. However, it happens to be consistent
> >> with other possibilities as well
> >>
> >
> > What are those other possibilities?
> >
> >
> 
> It's consistent with a particle model (photons) where the probability 
> that a photon is found at a point is given by the math of quantum 
> mechanics. The waves are still there, but they're in the math, not the 
> light.
> 
> Sylvia.

Or, they're not water's waves (or fluid's waves), 
they're light's waves.

That is similar to the charge current model that 
is a fluid model:  it's really the charge current 
model, but it's a fluid model.

Then, for wave optics and geometric optics, of 
light, and the passage of light (optics), it is 
interesting how the pilot or ghost wave has some 
interesting "opposite" expectations of fluid waves 
or liquid bubbles, like the surface tension of 
liquids' opposite is the skin effect of charge 
current (charge current is maximum at the edges, 
fluid flow is maximum at the core).

Basically the optic bubble or EM bubble breaks 
at all points at once, for example, where the 
liquid "bubble" of its wave interaction is at 
the interface of wave crashes.  This is another 
of these "opposite" expectations in the model, 
compared to the rest of the extension of the 
metaphor of the model.

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

#536066

On 11/28/2015 04:34 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> Sylvia Else, replying to Lester Thorpe, wrote:
>> > > The double slit experiment was, and remains,
>> > > consistent with the idea that light is a wave.
>> > >
>> > > However, it happens to be consistent
>> > > with other possibilities as well
>> >
>> > What are those other possibilities?
>>
>> It's consistent with a particle model (photons) where
>> the probability that a photon is found at a point
>> is given by the math of quantum mechanics.
>>
>> The waves are still there,
>> but they're in the math, not the light.
>
> Nicely put, thanks.
>
> Previously, I put it this way:
>
>    Jeff-Relf.Me/_The_Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principle_.PNG

Oh brother, Mr Big Font! I love your pink font! VERY GAY!

Glad to see you've discovered the Fourier transform and some of it's 
properties. Next maybe you and "Silvia" can learn some science.

You are really a clown. Do you know that?

Mathematics is FANTASY! Nothing is "in the math"! Sheesh!

Maybe both you AND HVAC need to come out of the closet?

-- 

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

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

#536098 — Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained.

On 11/28/2015 05:53 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says:
>
>    The more you know about the frequency/momentum of photons
>    (i.e. the more you know about how coherent they are)
>    the less you can know about their positions.
>
> You "know" more about the frequency/momentum
> of a lased photon than its postion --
> because, statistically, it behaves like a sign wave.
>
> Conversely,
> you "know" more about the position of a nonLased photon
> than you do about its frequency/momentum --
> because, statistically, it behaves like a wavelet/ripple.
>
> Jeff-Relf.Me/_The_Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principle_.PNG
>
>
YOu already said that.

Math fantasy is nor reality! Frequency/Velocity are not "real things". 
They are FANTASY!

Position is a real thing. You are comparing apples and oranges and 
trying to draw some conclusion!

You have NO idea here.

-- 

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

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

#536102 — Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained.

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 10:23:31 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> On 11/28/2015 05:53 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> >
> > The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says:
> >
> >    The more you know about the frequency/momentum of photons
> >    (i.e. the more you know about how coherent they are)
> >    the less you can know about their positions.
> >
> > You "know" more about the frequency/momentum
> > of a lased photon than its postion --
> > because, statistically, it behaves like a sign wave.
> >
> > Conversely,
> > you "know" more about the position of a nonLased photon
> > than you do about its frequency/momentum --
> > because, statistically, it behaves like a wavelet/ripple.
> >
> > Jeff-Relf.Me/_The_Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principle_.PNG
> >
> >
> YOu already said that.
> 
> Math fantasy is nor reality! Frequency/Velocity are not "real things". 
> They are FANTASY!
> 
> Position is a real thing. You are comparing apples and oranges and 
> trying to draw some conclusion!
> 
> You have NO idea here.
> 

Benj, you either don't know what 
a "mathematical universe hypothesis" 
is, or don't have one.

Particles can be deterministic and 
stochastic at once.

God doesn't need to roll dice.

There's quite a bit possible here 
for effects of the "energy wave", 
and, "light as wave", and the re-
vision and retrofit of mathematical 
models of "light and glow".

At some point, measurement makes 
effect.

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

#536104 — Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained.

On 11/28/15 12:30 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> There's quite a bit possible here for effects of the "energy wave",
> and, "light as wave", and the re- vision and retrofit of
> mathematical models of "light and glow".

   You certainly know how to confuse words and yourself.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#536158 — Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained.

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 10:40:30 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/28/15 12:30 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > There's quite a bit possible here for effects of the "energy wave",
> > and, "light as wave", and the re- vision and retrofit of
> > mathematical models of "light and glow".
> 
>    You certainly know how to confuse words and yourself.
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.


"I mean, can Ross Finlayson _really_ be a person?
Doesn't seem likely. But I'm happy to say I never 
have such doubts with you, because things you 
appear to be oblivious to are just not ones
that would present any difficulty to an AI 
hacker." -- Brian Chandler on Lester Zick

That's funny, I don't rely nor depend 
on "understandings" instead that there 
are "explanations" of things, rational, 
reliable, "explanations" of things, here 
theoretical logical things for mathematics 
(and mathematically logical theoretical things).


Sam, the point is to make sense of 
things, not non-sense of things.

Then, with "God might want to be lazy", 
things are laid out as if work is minimized
(and it might be easier for some warp and 
weft of the Universe that these "energy 
waves" are tachyonic, themselves as of what 
would be their fluid (or water) model, while all 
still being "observable", where for example 
gravity is also having "tachyonic" parts and 
neutrinos are "tachyon and bradyon").

Of the most resilient theory, 
the opposite is the same.

The only constant is change.

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

#536162 — Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained.

On 11/28/15 3:28 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> The only constant is change

   Some important exceptions

   Planck's Constant
   Speed of Light
   Gravitational Constant
   Increasing entropy of the universe

   Here's a longer list:
> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&Universal.x=90&Universal.y=14



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#536282 — Re: Now, instead of "From: Ross A. Finlayson", I see "RossBot".

On 11/28/2015 10:07 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> Now, instead of "From: Ross A. Finlayson", I see "RossBot";
> this way, I don't forget what it is.  I skip its posts.

What you skip is of no importance to anyone here.
Are you Napoleon on Fridays, like HVAC too?



-- 

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

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

#536261 — Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained.

On 11/28/2015 01:30 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 10:23:31 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
>> On 11/28/2015 05:53 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>
>>> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says:
>>>
>>>     The more you know about the frequency/momentum of photons
>>>     (i.e. the more you know about how coherent they are)
>>>     the less you can know about their positions.
>>>
>>> You "know" more about the frequency/momentum
>>> of a lased photon than its postion --
>>> because, statistically, it behaves like a sign wave.
>>>
>>> Conversely,
>>> you "know" more about the position of a nonLased photon
>>> than you do about its frequency/momentum --
>>> because, statistically, it behaves like a wavelet/ripple.
>>>
>>> Jeff-Relf.Me/_The_Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principle_.PNG
>>>
>>>
>> YOu already said that.
>>
>> Math fantasy is nor reality! Frequency/Velocity are not "real things".
>> They are FANTASY!
>>
>> Position is a real thing. You are comparing apples and oranges and
>> trying to draw some conclusion!
>>
>> You have NO idea here.
>>
>
> Benj, you either don't know what
> a "mathematical universe hypothesis"
> is, or don't have one.
>
> Particles can be deterministic and
> stochastic at once.
>
> God doesn't need to roll dice.
>
> There's quite a bit possible here
> for effects of the "energy wave",
> and, "light as wave", and the re-
> vision and retrofit of mathematical
> models of "light and glow".
>
> At some point, measurement makes
> effect.

No. Particles are deterministic and can have stochastic properties. NOT 
the same thing and not interchangeable.

In truth light is a wave in a medium. How from that fact it can have the 
properties it does is the mystery. I'm not giving any hints.

-- 

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

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

#536099 — Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, explained.

On 11/28/2015 06:29 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> Bell's theorem states:
>
>    No physical theory of local hidden variables
>    could ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
>
> In other words, quantum mechanics remains statistical, always;
> the actual, local causes are unknowable.
>
> It does not mean: The actual, local causes don't exist.
>
> Medical Science is like that too, statistical.
>
>
Statistics are NOT reality! They are the science of IGNORANCE! Better 
than nothing at all, but only showing ignorance!

Bells theorem actually states that either QM is correct or relativity is 
correct, They BOTH can't be correct!

-- 

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

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web