0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So what exactly is the magnetic flux from 0 to 2pi referring to?
Not to mention that "direction-dependent phase" is well known in optics (anisotropy of the index of refraction). The press release is poorly written and misleading. What they appear to be doing is using the fact that matter can interact with a magnetic field, and that light waves passing through that matter will depend on the matter's properties. Therefore, by changing the magnetic field, you can indirectly influence light (by acting on whatever matter its passing through). It seems a bit overblown to say this is demonstration of the Aharanov-Bohm effect for light, but its cool that the same mathematics describes the light waves in this experiment and it may be useful in designing photonic circuits.The original paper that did this experiment, which is much clearer on what's going on, is here:http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140130/ncomms4225/pdf/ncomms4225.pdf
QuoteSo what exactly is the magnetic flux from 0 to 2pi referring to?When you are measuring phase and/or angles, you can use degrees, where there is 360 degrees in a circle. This was invented by the Babylonians (if not earlier), and is taught to students at school.Mathematicians, physicists and engineers often prefer to measure phase and/or angles in units called "radians", which is shown by the abbreviation "RAD" on a scientific calculator. In this scheme, there are 2pi radians in a circle. Radians have some useful mathematical properties when you combine them with imaginary numbers - for example there is a close relationship between the ex function and sin(x)+cos(x).This results in one of the neatest results in mathematics eπi+1=0, which combines 5 of the fundamental constants of mathematics. (I think it was discovered by Euler?)
The equivalence creating physics, repeatable experiments. To get to it you need to make all 'points' equivalent relative constants.
As for Robert Close, he's new to me. had a look and read."A Dirac-like equation is derived by factoring the one-dimensional wave equation..."
'Locality' versus observer dependencies. One assumption physics make is that you can place yourself anywhere in this universe and find constants locally equivalent. How would a wave universe define (explain) it, in your own words please.
We can put it this way, assume it is a wave universe. How do you define positions to it?
What should 'dimensions' be seen as?
In what way should every position in 'time and room' be considered equivalent?
That as it needs to build on a equivalence too, unless it is a new logic system, defining it otherwise than from any idea of constants.
And what would a arrow be? And gravity?
Don't want to be rude, but I think we need to move this one to 'new theories' John.
Yeah, I like Baez too, but the modern definition is still 'c' as I think. It's you measuring that light, and it should be 'c' when counted on 'path taken' according to your measurement.
There is another point where I differ, I don't like light paths...