[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The physics of light is based on observation and experimentation.  The fact that you think the physics is weird is irrelevant.

Who says what?

"It's so weird," Aspect said of entanglement in a telephone call with the Nobel committee. "I am accepting in my mental images something which is totally crazy."

It sounds like you know this matter better than Aspect himself.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Joshua Gold - How Occam’s Razor Guides Human and Machine Decision-Making (October 19, 2022)

Deciding something as potentially complicated as what to do next or as deceptively simple as where to look next requires our brains to deliberate; that is, to move beyond the rigidness and immediacy of sensory-motor reflexes and instead take time to process and weigh evidence in a flexible manner until arriving at a categorical judgment that guides behavior. Our understanding of this deliberation process, which represents a major building block of cognition, has benefited greatly from mathematically rigorous theories from some unexpected places.

In this lecture, Joshua Gold will describe two theoretical frameworks that support ongoing studies of deliberative decision-making in the brain, focusing on their historical origins. The first describes quantitatively the process by which uncertain evidence can be accumulated over time to balance the competing needs of maximizing decision accuracy while minimizing decision time. This framework is built on mathematical advances that Alan Turing and colleagues developed to decode messages sent via the Enigma machine during World War II. The second describes how biases can emerge in this information-accumulation process that can be helpful when considering options that differ in form and scope. This framework is a formalization of Occam’s razor, which states that all else being equal, simple solutions are better — an idea directly relevant to how biological and artificial brains can make effective decisions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The physics of light is based on observation and experimentation.  The fact that you think the physics is weird is irrelevant.

Who says what?

"It's so weird," Aspect said of entanglement in a telephone call with the Nobel committee. "I am accepting in my mental images something which is totally crazy."

It sounds like you know this matter better than Aspect himself.

Here are some definitions of "weird":

suggesting something supernatural; uncanny.
(Oxford)

The meaning of WEIRD is of strange or extraordinary character: odd, fantastic.
(Merriam-Webster)

very strange and unusual, unexpected, or not natural
(Cambridge)

It means that the observation results differ from expectation. Otherwise, they won't be called weird.
His expected results must be based on some axioms/assumptions/model. But since they don't agree with observations, then at least one of those assumptions must be false.

Here are the assumptions used:

Principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields can only occur at speeds no greater than the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

The assumption above also refers to special theory of relativity.

The light was generated and interact with polarizers and detectors as photons.

Measurements are performed independently on the two separated particles of an entangled pair

The outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why Did Quantum Entanglement Win the Nobel Prize in Physics?

The Nobel prize in physics is typically awarded to scientists who make sense of nature; those whose discoveries render the universe more comprehensible. But the 2022 Nobel has been awarded to three physicists who revealed that the universe is even stranger than we thought thanks to Quantum Entanglement

This video adds some historical context to this year's  Nobel Prize in Physics.

[Bored chemist]

But the 2022 Nobel has been awarded to three physicists who revealed that the universe is even stranger than we thought

And now we know that it is,
Knowing stuff is good- you get things  like Nobel prizes for it.

[Zer0]

Try, Try, Until You Succeed!

P.S. - 👍

[pasala]

The physics of light is based on observation and experimentation.  The fact that you think the physics is weird is irrelevant.

Who says what?

"It's so weird," Aspect said of entanglement in a telephone call with the Nobel committee. "I am accepting in my mental images something which is totally crazy."

It sounds like you know this matter better than Aspect himself.

Here are some definitions of "weird":

suggesting something supernatural; uncanny.
(Oxford)

The meaning of WEIRD is of strange or extraordinary character: odd, fantastic.
(Merriam-Webster)

very strange and unusual, unexpected, or not natural
(Cambridge)

It means that the observation results differ from expectation. Otherwise, they won't be called weird.
His expected results must be based on some axioms/assumptions/model. But since they don't agree with observations, then at least one of those assumptions must be false.

Here are the assumptions used:

Principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields can only occur at speeds no greater than the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

The assumption above also refers to special theory of relativity.

The light was generated and interact with polarizers and detectors as photons.

Measurements are performed independently on the two separated particles of an entangled pair

The outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half

Mr. Yousuf, seeing the thread, i could not keep away sharing some of mine findings.  When I was sat near a canal where water was flowing I could see bending of water, diffraction.  It is known fact, however, to my enthusiasm started noting down important points:

01  There must be sufficient water to cause diffraction. 
02  As assumed by De broglie, movement "P" plays key role.  Without momentum of water particles there is no diffraction.
03  Key observation is that moving particles are affecting the particles at rest or stationary at the sides and making them to move sides.

In the case of electromagnetic waves also we can observe several similarities.  Here also momentum of particles plays key role.

Basic difference is, we are presuming space as empty.  When there are no particles in the space, how light is bending.

Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.

So, Space is not empty.   As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles.  It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.

[Origin]

As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles.

Descartes was wrong.  I would not be too hard on him though he died before relativity and quantum mechanics were discovered.

Basic difference is, we are presuming space as empty.  When there are no particles in the space, how light is bending.

I assume you think that light bending around a massive object is due to refraction and not due to space warping as shown by GR.  That is clearly wrong for several reasons the many glaring reason is that if there were particles in space that would cause this alleged refraction they would easily be detectable.

[Zer0]

SideNote -

Hello Mr Reddy!

Nice of You to have come back into the Forum, Welcome back!

Hope We can continue the journey of Learning & Understand the Universe.

P.S. - Tc!

[paul cotter]

I would reckon that there is a better explanation for many phenomena-we haven't got them yet so the standard explanation holds sway.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Mr. Yousuf, seeing the thread, i could not keep away sharing some of mine findings.  When I was sat near a canal where water was flowing I could see bending of water, diffraction.  It is known fact, however, to my enthusiasm started noting down important points:

01  There must be sufficient water to cause diffraction.
02  As assumed by De broglie, movement "P" plays key role.  Without momentum of water particles there is no diffraction.
03  Key observation is that moving particles are affecting the particles at rest or stationary at the sides and making them to move sides.

In the case of electromagnetic waves also we can observe several similarities.  Here also momentum of particles plays key role.

Basic difference is, we are presuming space as empty.  When there are no particles in the space, how light is bending.

Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.

So, Space is not empty.   As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles.  It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.

Hi, welcome to my thread.
We can see that there are some similarities between light and (surface) water wave. But we must also acknowledge that there are differences, such as their dimension in space.
In material waves such as water surface, they propagate faster in denser media. On the other hand, light propagates fastest through vacuum.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.

So, Space is not empty.   As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles.  It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.

There are many problems with diffraction not yet properly addressed by most physics textbooks that I know. Some of them are single edge diffraction, non-diffractive edge, non-diffractive slit, horizontally and vertically tilted diffraction. Descartes' theory doesn't explain them either.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But the 2022 Nobel has been awarded to three physicists who revealed that the universe is even stranger than we thought

And now we know that it is,
Knowing stuff is good- you get things  like Nobel prizes for it.

It's good for them to do the experiment anyway, in spite of Feynman's objection.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another video from a science Youtuber, experimenting on diffraction and interference of light.

[pasala]

SideNote -

Hello Mr Reddy!

Nice of You to have come back into the Forum, Welcome back!

Hope We can continue the journey of Learning & Understand the Universe.

P.S. - Tc!

Thank you so much.

[pasala]

Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.

So, Space is not empty.   As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles.  It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.

There are many problems with diffraction not yet properly addressed by most physics textbooks that I know. Some of them are single edge diffraction, non-diffractive edge, non-diffractive slit, horizontally and vertically tilted diffraction. Descartes' theory doesn't explain them either.

Diffraction of light is bending around corners.  What ever type it may.  Ok, let me tell with one best example.  Suppose in a carrom board, you have arranged coins at the centre and when you hit any coin from any side, coins in the straight line start moving.  However, coins in the straight line, while moving, faces coin in the que, due to conservation of momentum it alters or changes the course of other coins.  They start moving to the sides, this is diffraction.  For diffraction, there must be coins in the sides. 

Similarly particles in the light ray while moving alters or changes the course of other particles in the space, which in turn moves to the sides, this is diffraction.

Descartes never said about diffraction.  Descartes assumption is that space is not empty and it is completely filled with particles. 

It is mine assumption that space is completely filled with particles similar to that of carrom board.  When a particle hits other particle in the space, a chain like reaction starts.  Light waves when faces obstacle, affect or alter the course of other particles which start bending around corners.

So, Space is not empty.

[pasala]

Mr. Yousuf, seeing the thread, i could not keep away sharing some of mine findings.  When I was sat near a canal where water was flowing I could see bending of water, diffraction.  It is known fact, however, to my enthusiasm started noting down important points:

01  There must be sufficient water to cause diffraction.
02  As assumed by De broglie, movement "P" plays key role.  Without momentum of water particles there is no diffraction.
03  Key observation is that moving particles are affecting the particles at rest or stationary at the sides and making them to move sides.

In the case of electromagnetic waves also we can observe several similarities.  Here also momentum of particles plays key role.

Basic difference is, we are presuming space as empty.  When there are no particles in the space, how light is bending.

Diffraction in the case of water clearly tells us that without existing particles, there is no question of diffraction.

So, Space is not empty.   As assumed by Descartes space is completely filled with particles.  It is moving particles that are affecting particles at rest, causing diffraction.

Hi, welcome to my thread.
We can see that there are some similarities between light and (surface) water wave. But we must also acknowledge that there are differences, such as their dimension in space.
In material waves such as water surface, they propagate faster in denser media. On the other hand, light propagates fastest through vacuum.

Really, it is surprise to see, as of now, we don't know what exactly a light wave is.  Still there is no clarity on whether it is a wave or particle, since at times it behaves as wave and at times as particle.  When there is no clarity, by creating vacuum are we really taking away particles causing light.

Classical view is that light is a disturbance in the space.  What is causing this disturbance.  Suppose let us imagine that you are having a torch cell.  Now, when you switched  on it electrons start flowing out.  So, these electrons are causing disturbance.  If space is empty, how these electrons coming out from torch cell cause disturbance, simply moves out freely.  In other words there is no scope for light at all.

I would like to propose this torch cell test as acid test to find out what is there in the space.  For our naked eye it appears space is empty and there is nothing.  However space reacts to only certain particles such as electrons.  These electrons are having momentum and they passes it other particles in the space. 

Ok, suppose at a particular time certain amount of energy is released from Sun's core.  A particle that is freed from an atom start its journey towards Earth.  Similar to that of particle from torch cell it got momentum.  If space is empty, it cannot cause any disturbance and makes its journey.  However the thing is otherwise, space is not empty, as said by descartes a particle can occupy a place thus vacated by other particle.  It only passes on momentum to other particle and a chain reaction starts, known as disturbance in the space,

It is similar to that of a pebble in the water pond.  As there is no place for pebble it disturbs the water particles.  Water particle that is disturbed cannot move, it only passes the momentum to other particles.

I would like to propose torch cell example to propose space is not empty.

Ok, as said by you in vacuum light travels with maximum speed.  That's true and I also accept it.  But, how we are creating vacuum.  By creating vacuum means we are simply removing air particles.  As obstacles are removed particles gains momentum.

I don't think we are having capacity to separate or remove particles that are aiding or causing light or disturbance in the space.  If we are having that capacity our energy problems might have gone.  Unless we remove these particles we cannot say it as perfect vacuum.

In my view, at present we are striving hard with Solar energy because we are working  on it keeping in mind photo electric effect.

[Zer0]

Sidenote -

Isn't a True Vacuum Space a False Assumption as Virtual Particles & Quantum Field Fluctuations exist Everywhere.

P.S. - Please carry on with your Discussions, Thanks.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If space is empty, it cannot cause any disturbance and makes its journey.  However the thing is otherwise, space is not empty, as said by descartes a particle can occupy a place thus vacated by other particle.  It only passes on momentum to other particle and a chain reaction starts, known as disturbance in the space,

You started by assuming your own conclusion.
Can you apply that to gravity?

[pasala]

If space is empty, it cannot cause any disturbance and makes its journey.  However the thing is otherwise, space is not empty, as said by descartes a particle can occupy a place thus vacated by other particle.  It only passes on momentum to other particle and a chain reaction starts, known as disturbance in the space,

You started by assuming your own conclusion.
Can you apply that to gravity?

When General relativity was introduced, Lorentz wrote a letter to Einstein, "within GR you have reintroduced Aether".   In his reply, Einstein also accepted it saying "it must be new aether".

At present we are of the opinion that space is empty.  Ok, then I would like to put a small question to scientific community. 

Let us see our solar system.  Planets are spread in a wide area.  Ok, please examine these planets.  All the innermost planets are rocky.  Whereas outermost planets are gaseous.  It is true and known fact.  Why this difference.  Can't this rocky planet stay or exist in outermost area?.  At the same time, can't a gaseous planet stay or exist in innermost area ?. 

As per GR if we place a mass anywhere in the universe, in response it will distort or curve the space time around it.  It is not clear what is being curved.  Ok, in case if it is energy and it is from the mass, in such case mass is independent and it can stay anywhere in the universe.

This is not the case.  Planets are within the area of solar system only.  Further non-existence of gaseous planets within the area of innermost, tells us that it is energy density that matters. 

Whomsoever argues that space is empty have to give answer to this. 

This  is for discussion purpose only.