The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Quote
So, it's complicated stuff, and it's easy for people to disagree while actually believing the same thing and talking at cross purposes.

Absolutely!  I think that's very common.
22
Yor_on, Bill: IMHO if you read up about weak measurement, you come to appreciate that the Copenhagen Interpretation is old hat, and the photon really is a wave. Have a look at an ocean wave:



Look under the surface. That wave isn't some localized point-particle thing. It's always in two places at the same time. So is the photon. It's a wave in space, where there is no ocean surface, and it genuinely goes through both slits. But when you detect it at one slit, something like an optical Fourier transform occurs and the photon is transformed into a dot. This goes through one slit only. Then when you detect it at the screen, something like an optical Fourier transform occurs and the photon is transformed into a dot. Simple mundane stuff, no magic, and no multiverses.

I can very much appreciate that point of view.
23
For something to be in one place, the whole of it must be in that place. If some of it is not in that place, that part is in a different place. To say that anything is in two places at the same time is wrong unless the whole of it is in both places at the same time. If a green apple is in two places at the same time, it could be sitting on one side of a set of scales while also being in a fruit bowl on a table some distance away. It would be able to balance a red apple on the other side of the scales, an apple of the same mass but which is only located in one place. That doesn't happen though, because when we're dealing with the quantum world we would have to say that the green apple is both sitting on one side of the scales while balancing the red apple AND it's sitting in the fruit bowl while not balancing the red apple, though that then spoils things because it means the red apple has to be sitting on balanced scales and sitting lower down on unbalanced scales at the same time as well.

So, it's complicated stuff, and it's easy for people to disagree while actually believing the same thing and talking at cross purposes. Tighten up your use of language and you might resolve the issue.
24
General Science / Re: How at risk are languages of extinction?
« Last post by David Cooper on 16/09/2014 20:04:08 »
German's just as much a mess as any other natural language. Sticking the words "far" and "see" together makes the word "television", for example, but it's all done in a slapdash way. It's difficult to do it properly with most things without ending up with very long names which describe what they are and do, but there are ways round that which make things manageable. There are whole areas of vocabulary which can be built out of fundamental components but which never are in natural languages, and that's what my artificial language seeks to put right.

Many dead languages were not abandoned, but evolved into modern languages. Of those which actually have died, it is nothing to do with them being inadequate, but is caused by political change. In Scotland, Pictish was abandoned in the course of a few generations as people switched to Gaelic which had a higher status due to there being a Gaelic-speaking king. It was not recorded and cannot be recovered. I'm not demanding that anyone should go on speaking dying languages though - I'm simply trying to get across the importance of recording them. I don't want to force languages on people who don't want them either, but I do want them to be available to people who decide they want them back.

The most productive conversations people have in the future will be the ones they have with machines. That doesn't mean that they'll spend less time talking to other people though - quite the opposite, because most arguments and discussions will be quickly settled and proved beyond doubt by AGI, so we'll be free to spend more time socialising with people instead. It will, for example, be possible for every important idea about an issue to be presented to everyone who needs to hear it, and they will no longer just have the loudest voices waste most of their time bombarding them with a tiny selection of biassed and distorted ideas.
25
Yor_on, Bill: IMHO if you read up about weak measurement, you come to appreciate that the Copenhagen Interpretation is old hat, and the photon really is a wave. Have a look at an ocean wave:



Look under the surface. That wave isn't some localized point-particle thing. It's always in two places at the same time. So is the photon. It's a wave in space, where there is no ocean surface, and it genuinely goes through both slits. But when you detect it at one slit, something like an optical Fourier transform occurs and the photon is transformed into a dot. This goes through one slit only. Then when you detect it at the screen, something like an optical Fourier transform occurs and the photon is transformed into a dot. Simple mundane stuff, no magic, and no multiverses.
26
There's a lot of problems with the way electromagnetism is taught and understood, yor_on. I quite like this paper myself, wherein the photon is a "pulse" of four-potential. It's something like a lemon, and the space and time derivatives of potential gives you the archetypal sinusoidal waveforms. By the way, we maybe referred to the wrong paper above, see this: 

http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n9/full/nphoton.2014.177.html
27
Quote
It depends on how you define "an electron"

It also depends on how you define “place”.  In general it must be defined as a position in space.  Space must be restricted to the three dimensions that we experience.  Any additional dimensions that may be suggested are mathematical concepts which may, or may not, bear any relation to reality. 

The question that must arise is: “Can we restrict a quantum object (quon) to the dimensions of the observable – macro – Universe?”

Quantum mechanics works, but no one really knows why.  There is something about QM that eludes the best efforts our scientists and mathematicians.

Infinity has similar features.  Mathematicians have shown that infinity can be a valuable concept, but there is always something about it that cannot be tamed.

Perhaps looking for a link here is fanciful.  Perhaps it should be left to philosophers, but, on the other hand, if it could lead to a clearer understanding of reality; if it could throw some light on some of the apparent paradoxes of the Universe, surely it is worth considering.
28
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« Last post by Dean93 on 16/09/2014 16:03:50 »
Hey guys. How is everyone doing? I haven't been here in a while, would anyone like to catch me up on recent news?

Anyway, I'm doing an AMA, which is basically on online question and answer session, about POIS on a site called reddit. I'm making this post as proof, but feel free to check in and participate. Link is here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2gkkdg/iama_guy_with_post_orgasmic_illness_syndrome_ama/
29
Yeah, you're right John. I also think so, but it's the first time I've seen someone define it here :) potentials are expressions that we later, after a outcome, can define as a product of a presumed 'field'. But if we lift forward somethings potential we also seem to be leaving a materialistic reality, in where stuff as EM exists. A potential is no boson. Anyone seeing a cave here :)
30
New Theories / Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Last post by jccc on 16/09/2014 14:18:06 »
I don't think your theory is correct. I also think QM is BS.

Protons able to stick together because there is a strong force at work?

Electrons able to not stick with nucleus because QM laws?

There is only one force at work at all time, between charged particles, EM force.

Ether is negative charged tiny particle, attracted by protons to form a ball around nucleus, electrons are float over the ether ball. Similar like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU#aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines