The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Guest Book / Have you tried to solve the odd ball problem?
« Last post by Alan McDougall on Today at 05:38:13 »
This puzzle is only for those who have not come across it before. You can get the solution from the internet but this would defeat the purpose of this post which having a little fun!!

The Problem 12 Odd Pool Balls Puzzle

The Problem:

You have 12 balls identical in size and appearance but 1 is an odd weight (could be either light or heavy).

You have a set scales (balance) which will give 3 possible readings: Left = Right, Left > Right or Left < Right (i.e. Left and Right have equal weight, Left is Heavier, or Left is Lighter).

You must not use a bathroom type scale, you must use the two pan type scale often seen in a court of law. Of course you do not need real scales just your logic and imagination and a process off elimination to get to the solution

You have only 3 chances to weigh the balls in any combination using the scales. Determine which ball is the odd one and if it's heavier or lighter than the rest.

Alan
2
What do you think is the ultimate fate of the universe?

Alan
3
If the sun appeared 10,000 kilometers miles away from Earth for just 1 second and then returned to its normal position, what would happen?

Alan
4
New Theories / Re: De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?
« Last post by McQueen on Today at 02:55:54 »
Rather than hypersonic, I think you should use the term ultrasonic for lithotripsy. Hence the frequency is at least 20 kHz.

Appreciated.
5
Quote from: Alan McDougall
Can Schrodinger's cat also exist in two places(boxes) at the same time?
No. Absolutely not.

Quote from: Alan McDougall
Scientists have come to the conclusion that not only can Schrodinger cat be both died or alive in the box, but can exist in more that one box in an another box due to quantum uncertainty?
I know that's what some physicists believe but they're dead wrong. In fact quantum mechanics (QM) cannot be used to make such a prediction, i.e. QM does not say any such thing. It's a serious misconception. Not only have I come to this conclusion (which is an easy conclusion to come to) but I conferred with several of my colleagues about this (all of whose names you'd know if I listed them out) who also conclude the same thing.

The misconception is based on a misinterpretation of the meaning of the probability density. (more after I do my laundry)wave

http://www.livescience.com/54890-schrodinger-cat-can-be-in-two-places.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2016-5-30


Alan
[/quote]

Could there be confusion between quantum non-locality and this new thought experiment where the idea of multiple cats existing in a unknown state of either dead or alive in two boxes?
6
New Theories / Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Last post by timey on Today at 00:59:18 »
Oh for goodness sake, grow up!  You are acting like a little child.

No you did not say those exact words!  Very sorry, please excuse me.  The meaning is clearly the same!  The clock at a higher elevation experiences more gravity potential than a clock at lower elevation, therefore a lesser gravity potential is added to the lower clock, for a slower rate of time.

Anyone would think by your tone and flavour of objection that I was questioning logic that is attributed to you...  I am not.   I am questioning logic that has already been questioned by the very creators of that logic, and by many respected physicists world wide.

This does not mean that my alternate logic is correct.  But if you fancy a progressive chat about some actual 'alternate' physics some time, let me know, aye! (please now imagine my eyebrows wiggling up and down!)
7
No. Absolutely not.

You really should be careful about making absolute statements like that when talking about science. At best scientific theories provide us with models of reality but how exactly those models correspond to reality is largely unprovable. That is the entire reason Occam's Razor exists. Given multiple models or reality that all give identical predictions there is really no way to objectively prove which one is correct. Thus science has chosen to default to whatever model makes the smallest number of/least objectionable assumptions because generally that model has the highest chance of being correct.

In this particular case we have several models (also known as interpretations) of Quantum Mechanics that so far all make the same predictions. There are ongoing efforts to design experiments for which the different models give different predictions for the outcome. The various tests of the Bell inequalities is the first example of this and are used to rule out the local hidden variable interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. There are still far too many other interpretations to call the matter settled and the Occam's Razor choice is generally thought to be the Copenhagen interpretation which again wins mainly on the basis of fewer/less objectionable assumptions. However, recent experiments have demonstrated that the wavefunction isn't completely epistemic (i.e. a purely mathematical construct) and instead has at least some ontic properties (i.e. what we might call a physical existence). So it is clear going forward that the Copenhagen interpretation must be modified if not outright replaced as it is a pure epistemic theory (i.e. it says the wavefunction is just math).

Quote
I know that's what some physicists believe but they're dead wrong. In fact quantum mechanics (QM) cannot be used to make such a prediction, i.e. QM does not say any such thing. It's a serious misconception. Not only have I come to this conclusion (which is an easy conclusion to come to) but I conferred with several of my colleagues about this (all of whose names you'd know if I listed them out) who also conclude the same thing.

The misconception is based on a misinterpretation of the meaning of the probability density. (more after I do my laundry)wave

You have no actual proof of any the assertions made here. Even if we accept you at your word that your colleagues are famous scientists and that they agree with your conclusion that is at best an improper appeal to authority. You have given no indication of their fields of expertise (if they aren't working at the cutting edge of Quantum Mechanics they cannot be considered experts in Quantum Mechanics) nor do we have any idea of how well the views of you and your colleagues represent the views of the majority of experts in Quantum Mechanics. Furthermore, as I demonstrated above the particular question you are answering doesn't actually have an absolute answer as the experts in Quantum Mechanics have yet to experimentally settle the question of the best possible model for Quantum Mechanics. However, experiments have narrowed down the possibilities by proving that Quantum Mechanics is inherently nonlocal and/or inherently unreal and that the wavefunction is at least in some sense physically real.

From a purely Copenhagen viewpoint the answer to "Can a particle physically be in two places at once?" is "No" simply because the wavefunction is thought to be entirely non-physical. Unfortunately as I've said previously experiments have proven that in some sense there is something physical about the wavefunction so the naive Copenhagen answer can't be true. In the end given the currently limited experimental evidence we have that can be used to differentiate between the various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics the best answer we can give is that there is a pretty good chance that a particle can be physically in more than one place at the same time.
8
Recent abuse of our forum acceptable usage policy has led us to take a firmer line on how we moderate new theories and alternative theories. Please read the Forum Acceptable Usage http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0 particularly at the end of section 5:

"If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly."

Please review this topic and remove material which has been previously posted elsewhere or in other parts of this forum, otherwise we will delete the opening posts.

Thank you.
9
Although we would all agree that the speed of light is not constant in all situations, this topic is more concerned with attempts to misrepresent the propagation of waves in a medium and draw incorrect conclusions regarding the behaviour of light.
Whether due to a shallow understanding of the behaviour of waves or a deliberate attempt to shoehorn physics into a false conclusion, the following is typical of the misunderstanding:

But The wave's speed depends only on the medium. Adding energy to the wave doesn't speed it up, it just increases its amplitude. A water wave, unlike many other types of wave, has a speed that also depends on its shape: a broader wave moves faster.  This means that just like electromagnetic radiation the speed of sound and of waves in water are invariant, they do not follow the laws of  Galilean transformations.
If energy is added to a water wave, either by an increase in wind speed or by increasing the speed of a boat creating waves, then the wave will increase in speed and consequently wavelength.

Similar misunderstandings regarding the speed of sound in air has been dealt with above, along with the myth that the speed of waves in a medium is independent of the motion of the observer through the medium or of motion of the medium relative to the observer.

All of this misdirection is intended to 'prove' that light travels in a medium. Personally I don't care if it does or not, so long as the physics is not not misrepresented.
10
There can be a place where there is nothing but space and time, but elsewhere there is matter. A place is something. Time and space too. Pitch black is no light.

Hypothetically time and space, matter and energy started. Before that there was either God, or quantum mechanics, self existent, for want of a better word than before.

Absolute nothingness could never have existed, there always had to be a source, a creative power. Otherwise nothing means no dimensions, space, time, light, matter, energy or chance... no nature of quantum mechanics... nothing.

I loudly agree with you for the above post, it concur exactly with what I believe and belief does not require proof.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums