Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8249606 - 04/07/08 06:42 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

cleeen said:
Quote:

TheCow said:
:blah:
I thought we agreed that this should be a math only discussion now?  Gee, what a big fucking surprise that you would want to sidestep the math and just ramble in words incoherently about things you clearly have no knowledge of.  I mean shit!  I didnt see that coming :suicide:





haha ..

I did mention it actually and those posts above were regarding previously posted material ..

However i feel you can enlighten me and would like to present you in this game of cards my opening position

My opening position is the Hesisenberg uncertainty principle

y=1/x

so measurement of y is inversely proportional to the measurement of x . I submit that this is merely a experimental condition and you i take it propose that it is a value attribute of reality itself ..


Can you or can you not proove that y=1/x is infact a feature of reality and not an experimental condition ?




:rofl2:  That is your response to the derivation?  Are you serious?  Have you even looked at the derivation of the uncertainty principle and the derivation of quantum mechanics?  Fuck

Yes this this is similar to the Heisenberg principle yet what you wrote has no physical significance.  Maybe Im wasting my time here... Can you not understand the difference between an arbitrary equation with no physical backing to one with immense experimental and theoretical backing?  If not...well come to OTD for the answer


Edited by TheCow (04/07/08 06:51 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
    #8249625 - 04/07/08 07:05 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Just post the exact notation you have up you sleeve thecow ..

How am i supposed to guess from a google search which formulae you have in your mind ?

That being said the basic Heisenberg uncertainty relationship has a lot of direct experimental backing doesn't it ?

John Polkinghorne (Former Professor of Mathematical Physics , Trinity College Cambridge) refers another simple equation that the entire substance of Quantum physics can be derived from the Equation "change over time is related to the Energy of the system" .. they all start simple .. its not a fault .. its an attribute .






--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Edited by cleeen (04/07/08 07:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8249744 - 04/07/08 08:24 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Your analysis is beyond ridiculous. I too could make anything up by looking at fluctuations. See my previous post on numerology for what I think of it. Sure you can see wonders in every mundane things, but since you started, Voltaire once said "A witty saying proves nothing".

This simple equation above is called Schrödinger equation and is the differential equation describing the dynamic of the wave function evolve in between measurements. You don't even need it to derive the uncertainty relation since the latter is a simple consequence of the mathematical structure of the Hilbert space used to model quantum stuff and in which the Schrödinger equation acts.

Concerning uncertainty, why don't you check the whole wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle and get a clue about it before posting anymore nonsense. Just the fact that you confuse the value themselves with the uncertainties related to the samples' distribution is a bit troubling.

Anyway, I'm over and out, I don't even know why I cared in the first place. I guess I'll never learn, silly me !



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
    #8250285 - 04/07/08 11:26 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

So now you say the subject is Hilbert Space .. Jeepers you guys sure do have trouble stating simply what it is that you mean ..


Hilbert Space = multi dimensional linear algebra .. so what ? how does multi dimensional Linear space determine uncertainty .. you guys seem bent on proclaiming your own brilliance without ever justifying it ..

Just how exactly does multi dimensional Linear space necessarily determine Fundamental uncertainty .. ?

Just say it in words like a normal intelligent human since its such a simple concept .. go on .. one sentence should do it for how you put it over .. just stop all the outrage and prove your position because i just don't see anything of what you are purporting to exist there .. and you seem to find it impossible to utter .


And as for your comments regarding the electron deposit fluctuations being irrelevant to statistical significance .. i think you need to put away the books for a little bit and look at that again .. Why should patterns in any fluctuation in the Electron deposit be observable when you insist on random events .. let alone your complete mis-understanding of the difference between short term
pattern operators and long term running averages .

I haven't made any particular analysis so i dont see why you claim it ridiculous .. i have just presented some data because i was asked to bring the discussion into terms of numbers and precision .

You should be embarrassed .. and clearly you dont have much interest in the results of actual Double slit Quantum experiment at all .


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Edited by cleeen (04/07/08 11:35 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8251091 - 04/07/08 02:57 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

cleeen said:
Just say it in words like a normal intelligent human since its such a simple concept .. go on .. one sentence should do it for how you put it over ..



Ha, so now you want words. Physics is math, if you do not understand the language there is no reason to have the discussion with you. Im not about to get into an argument with someone about Latin when I speak none of it. You need to learn the math, thats it, Im sorry but you fail at science and until you learn the tools necessary there is no reason to continue this discussion.

A Hilbert Space is an inner product space and is therefore useful in Quantum Mechanics. The derivation is a straightforward mathematical proof on the assumption that the two operators (the position and momentum operators) are as defined. If those two operators are in fact true in a physical sense then the uncertainty principle HAS to be real. If you want to argue with me that the operators are false, then go ahead. But I expect to see reasons why that is instead of you jerking off onto your keyboard. This is like arguing with a 4 year old, you have listed precisely ZERO reasons why the uncertainty principle is wrong. Yet you expect motherfuckers to take your ass seriously? Go back to the Mysticism forum , Im sure Middleman would love such an enlightened fellow. You guys can talk about how great the future is going to be with aliens and magic and dragons! Yes dragons! Have fun


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
    #8253292 - 04/07/08 10:06 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

How come it is you then thecow who seems unwilling unable to put the mathematical proof here in this thread ..

How many times do i have to ask you to put it in here plain and simple so we can get going ?

Just cut and paste the primary derivation of uncertainty incluing all assumptions and then we can begin .

You write ..
Quote:

The derivation is a straightforward mathematical proof on the assumption that the two operators (the position and momentum operators) are as defined. If those two operators are in fact true in a physical sense then the uncertainty principle HAS to be real.




But hey excuse me that isnt proof by any means .. you are just making an declaration .. where is the actual mathematical proof .. put it here in the thread .

What is the Definition of the (Position, Momentum) operators .. you say that this definition determines the uncertainty but you dont even declare what these operators are .

Seems to me that the operators will be something like
(probability=P)

P(momentum) + P(position) = 1
or x+y=1

Sounds to me like you know the stuff backwards , so just post the primary proof of the uncertainty principle , which as we have now ascertained relates to the "assumption" that momentum and position are mutually uncertain ..

So post

1. the working definition of the operators

and more importantly of course the substance being ..

2. the actual proof (mathematical or experimental) that these operators are correct

Because yes i would like to argue that the operators are incorrectly defined as i keep repeating .. but as yet you havent suppled a proper working definition at all .


Just post the Primary Proof like i keep asking for .. State the defined nature of the Operators and the Proof that they are correct ..


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8254641 - 04/08/08 08:31 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Im sorry man but you can go fuck yourself. The derivation has already been posted as a link to wikipedia. Do you realy think Im gonna try and type out math in a fucking forum box? Put down the crack pipe son, head over to wikipedias article on the motherfucker and read. The fact that you havent just shows you arent interested in arguing over the derivation, just abstract squabbles related to this discussion. Once you do read, post the 'few' lines that you have a problem with, and I will respond by explaining them. I dont have a problem writing down some math, but Im not going to take the time to try and figure out how to express the entire derivation in ASCII. Also an operator is not Probability(momentum) that is not what an operator is. You do not grasp the fundamentals of linear algebra so I am done with this thread. I won't explain to you the necessary math background for us to talk about the derivation. Also you refuse to read the fucking derivation, so I say Good day


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
    #8254684 - 04/08/08 08:50 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

> Im not going to take the time to try and figure out how to express the entire derivation in ASCII

Just use latex format:
Code:

\Delta E = h\nu
\frac{\(d^2u(r)}{dr^2}=\alpha^2u(r)



http://www.physicsforums.com/misc/howtolatex.pdf
http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/contents.html


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Seuss]
    #8255143 - 04/08/08 11:58 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Nice to see you Seuss ..

I wonder how on earth you were going to enter into algebra discussion if you cannot write the code thecow .. Water off a ducks back and all that . An excellent Devils Advocate tho i must say - well done .

Yet , all the bluff and bravado about having to talk in big pages of derivation are meaningless in the search for the seat of the "uncertainty principle" ..

The Heisenberg uncertainty principal (Px=Py<=1) is an experimental truth , easily depicting knowlwdge that cannot be determined . But the preachers of Uncertainty go further claiming this experimental uncertainty is but a case example of larger universal fundamental uncertainty .. or for a better term 'unknowable knowledge' .

Some 'experts' say the basis of the fundamental uncertainty is in the Schrödinger equation
.. but as you can see from this image the equation itself proves nothing .




Other "experts" may claim say the Uncertainty is seated in the multi dimensional construction of Hilbert space itself .. but Hilbert space is just A 3D modeling system for vectors that is used by Quantum Scientists to construct models .. the short of it is that Axis on a graph do not determine uncertainty anymore than a 3D tripod built with matchsticks proves the uncertainty principle .

Quote:

The mathematical concept of a Hilbert space, named after the German mathematician David Hilbert, generalizes the notion of Euclidean space in a way that extends methods of vector algebra from the two-dimensional plane and three-dimensional space to infinite-dimensional spaces. In more formal terms, a Hilbert space is an inner product space — an abstract vector space in which distances and angles can be measured — which is "complete", meaning that if a sequence of vectors approaches a limit, then that limit is guaranteed to be in the space as well.




Surely no proof of fundamental uncertainty ..


We can go a bit deeper and into the Quaternions
that are the Algebraic rules Hilbert Space uses .. rules like matrix operators that can for instance switch a vector from going straight ahead to sideways or sideways to straight up etc .. but these rules are just that expressions of vector transformations .. nothing about uncertainty there ..





The Author didnot try to make Quaternions into more than they were .. in fact he reduced them , making them more certain ..

Quote:

[Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Nov. 11, 1844,
vol. 3 (1847), 1-16]

In the theory which Sir William Hamilton submitted to the Academy in November, 1843, the name quaternion was employed to denote a certain quadrinomial expression ...

The author .. has been enabled to present some of them in a clearer view, as regards their bearings on geometrical questions; and also to improve the algebraical method of applying them, or what may be called the CALCULUS OF QUATERNIONS.
.. he has been induced to call the trinomial expression itself, as well as the line which it represents, a VECTOR.







We can go deeper and look into claims made that the uncertainty is itself due to Plank's constant .. the set of energy values stumbled onto by Plank as something of a noble cheat to make his formulas for other functions actually work out right .. ( essentially working backwards from a result to determine an input value -- i.e solving a equation ) - But why should the energy levels that energy packets are seen to display be able to prove uncertainty .. Plank's constant Energy levels are discrete and known .. very well known in fact ..



Just how can something that can be stated with a high degree of certainty be the seat of Fundamental Uncertainty ? .. simply put it cannot .. The planks constant itself is yet another red herring

So you dig deeper into it and it can be mentioned that The uncertainty is due to the fact that The energy quantum is a wave form connected to the "zero point field" and as a waveform it carries with it a Level of uncertainty that is fundamental ...

Quote:

The invisible field

Quantum science in the 20th century revealed the presence of an all-pervasive background sea of quantum energy in the universe. Cambridge University’s Dr. Harold Puthoff was one of the first to measure this energy of the universe. This energy was measured at zero degrees Kelvin, the absolute lowest possible temperature in the universe equal to minus 273 degrees Celsius. At this temperature according to Newtonian physics all molecular and atom movement should have ceased and no energy should be measured at all! Instead of finding no energy, as was expected, he found what he called a ‘seething cauldron’ of energy and henceforth it was given the name zero point energy (ZPE). ...

In quantum electrodynamics the background sea of quantum energy is now used to explain the uncertainty principle that was discovered by quantum physics, the unpredictable behaviour of subatomic particles.





.. but this is also a very weak argument for such a Hard Science .
Take a single wave form packet frozen in time and therefore frozen in Space also .. just a thought experiment so we can introduce observation as if with the eye of God .
A standing waveform in a unit section of space - in a universe of its own if you like, it has a velocity at this stage of simply Zero , a momentum of zero also , in this state its momentum is known .
This standing waveform is in many ways resembling solid State matter .. we also know its position for it is where it is , and excluding other inputs as we have cleverly done in this example the Wave form will simply compress to leave a trace at the point of highest probability as designated exactly by the center of the probability distribution density ..
So where is the uncertainty ?
There is none to speak of in that example ..


So what we are left with ?
.. the defense that Because all quantum waveforms are connected to the infinite mesh of reality and infinite reality is complex beyond our understanding that we have no way of determining what shape the probability curve any quantum packet will be navigating at any given moment in space ..
That is to say the Fundamental determinant of the flux of probability curves at any moment is unpredictable because we have no idea what is modulating it .

Some people would like to seal it shut there , claiming with almost neurotic pathology that this huge , big , massively compounded complexity means that comprehension of probability curves is beyond possible understanding ..
They claim - without proof - that events that combine to alter probabilities at any moment are Random .. And that it is this fundamental Randomness that affects the behavior of all quantum vectors and interactions and therefor in its compounded randomness it is unpredictable and uncertain .

But again No Proof of Random has been achieved . It has been ASSUMED .
This is what Einstein disagreed with , and why he claimed that 'god' did not play dice with the universe ..

However note this .. Quantum effects apply to what has been called particles and bodies of particles as much as it does to energy packets . This is why most modern Quantum Physicists prefer to mention that all the problems associated with particle-wave duality disappear when all things are considered to be variants of Waveforms .. that putting proper values for waveforms into equations and discarding the notion of particle altogether determines the experimentally verifiable results .

So currently all conventional bodies of Mass are to be considered as variations of Standing waveforms structured with design etc but all obeying quantum waveform laws .

Yet still no determinant of Probability has been allocated ..
For bodies of humans whose individual particles are always behaving as waveforms connected to the universal quantum Flux , the determinants of probability are similar to those determinants that determine the behavior of 'free' quantum energy packets such as visible light .

Similar in method to Shrodinger who had a clear view of the result and by simply enlisting the values that made the equation work properly determined quantum energy levels , the argument can be made and is almost irrefutable that the very things that determine probability in our own behavior also determine probability in all quantum events ..

So what does determine probability in our own experiences ..
Surely it is intent ..
It is intent that gets a person up a hill , out of bed , to work , intent that determines long hours of study and learning , intent intent intent .. always intent .
Not always our own intent , but always in human behavior intent seems to guide , direct and govern .

The behavior of a quantum particle over time is determined by its energy .. but intent as we know can focus energy .. change the shape of the quantum packet as it were , throw a handful of dust and it might travel just a arms length and disperse .. but with intent do mold , shape and turn that handful of dust into a lump and the same mass can be flung 100 times as far and hit a target ..
And what was the difference that determined the 100 times increase quantum behavior? .. it was intent ..
And what determined the probability curve in this case ? .. intent did .

So what is a prime determinant of Quantum behavior? .. intent is .

Whether the quantum article is a 'liberated' energy packet, an atom or a structure comprised of many combined dynamic quantum particles such as a human body a ruling determinant of behavior is intent .

People can construct barriers to comprehending this by insisting on artificial division between the world we may think we live in and the quantum world , but that is simply not what science is telling us .
Its not what wisdom tells us either .

Heads , hearts , spirits , mathematic and scientific truths are all reminding us that intent is a prime determinant of probability .

Now if this is at all true as we ourselves prove and reveal it to be every moment , the question remains .. whose intent is ruling the day .

Whose intent is strongest ? .. What type of intent is strongest ? .. these are important questions because these things determine probability .

But the answers are far from uncertain .


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Edited by cleeen (04/08/08 12:59 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8255208 - 04/08/08 12:27 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I guess I didnt make myself clear before. Im not going to bother responding to anything you claim until you fulfill your original promise of pointing out the flaws with the derivation. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle#Derivations

Im not even going to read your above post fully until you respond to the derivation. Lets just end this thread if you dont plan to do what you said you were going to, I wont add to it otherwise. Why would I post the derivation? Just please god answer me that, please. Its a click away, see I already know how full of shit you are. I deal with people like you on a regular basis, I know youve looked at the derivation and did not understand it. Now you want me to go through all the steps for you so you can try and get a handle on it. Which means that your original contention of the principle being wrong was based on absolutely nothing because you do not understand the math. What the fuck are you talking about quaternions for? Do you have any idea what those even are or why people use them? Either read the derivation and tell ME WHY IT IS FALSE or just dont bother responding to this thread anymore. If you make a claim that something is false, show me why you think it is false


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Seuss]
    #8255216 - 04/08/08 12:31 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I dont know Latex that well but I figured thats what I would use once he pointed out which parts he was having trouble with. However its illogical to take the work to post the derivation when he literally just has to click a mouse button to see it


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
    #8258526 - 04/09/08 02:36 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

oK .

My position is that the mathematical derivations are correct .. but that the assumptions they begin with are insufficient .

As you and i both know the steps of the derivation are entirely consistent with the math .. thus there is no point in discussing the 'validity' of the derivation algebra itself .

What is my point of interest is the declarative statements that comprise the fundamental starting position .. like in computer programming where firstly the classes of variables are declared .

How about this .. for a start:
(verbatim copied from the Wikipedia article)


Quote:

Modern understanding

The Uncertainty Principle is a property of quantum states, corresponding to the statistical properties of measurement in quantum mechanics. To clarify this point, consider the Heisenberg microscope experiment again.

Suppose that a physicist has a way to prepare an electron in a particular quantum state. The physicist repeats this procedure 200 times, and for 100 times measures the position, and 100 times measures the momentum. The answers will be different in each of the first 100 and second 100 experiments, and they will cluster around some mean with some spread, measured by the standard deviation.

The standard deviation of the position times the standard deviation of the momentum is never less than hbar/2.




Yet the same example using a single electron determines no uncertainty .. let alone the std deviations that are based on the purposely Uncontrolled background quantum interactions .

It is not the behavior of the Electron that is in this case uncertain .. it is the lack of rigor in controlling the experimental conditions ..

There is no such uncertainty to a single electron , none can be proven .. the fundamental description of the electron in terms of a normalized average is thus unjustified .

Proper controls on the experimental variables will result in all 200 of the self same electrons having the exact same measurements for position and momentum .. this is logic . and in this improved experimental condition the std deviation will be zero .


Can you explain to me thecow why they are using hidden 'experimental uncertainty' to generate the suggested proof of 'fundamental uncertainty' ?


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8258557 - 04/09/08 03:17 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

what I understand the principle to mean is that their is no practical difference. You cannot have sufficient rigor in the protocol, cuz you can't determine one without affecting the other. Nevertheless, describe how you come to that conclusion.

How do you determine that their is no uncertainty in the measurement of the single electron? You can say you don't know the percision, but that's different than saying their is no uncertainty. Just cuz you get a number doesn't mean its meaningful.

Now I understand that some argue this is because their is actually no certainty in even a metaphysical sence as to the state of the particle, but we need not reach this position- which I believe is the accepted view, no?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: johnm214]
    #8258994 - 04/09/08 08:59 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

what I understand the principle to mean is that their is no practical difference. You cannot have sufficient rigor in the protocol, cuz you can't determine one without affecting the other. Nevertheless, describe how you come to that conclusion.




Yes that is the Practical uncertainty .. and you are right due to the rigor of the protocol .

But they go further and claim that the uncertainty is actual of the very metaphysical nature of the energy packet itself .. as if it were a thing half in this world and half in another world .
They claim that it is not just out of our ability to get these measurements accurate today because of technology/protocols but that it will forever remain impossible because they have a deep understanding of the very nature of quantum energy .

Thing is that they dont know near as much as they think they do , and the proof they offer is not logically valid .

There is a word for it .. it is "Hubris" and it is the mistakes and other rubbish created in the mind due to the mistaken arrogance of thinking we know more than we do .


Quote:

How do you determine that their is no uncertainty in the measurement of the single electron? You can say you don't know the precision, but that's different than saying their is no uncertainty. Just cuz you get a number doesn't mean its meaningful.






Thing is they actually claim that it cannot be known ever , not ever ..

There will always be uncertainty in classic measurement .. the rulers we use can increase in precision a million fold but the uncertainty will simply shift over that many decimal places .. there will always be the element of uncertainty in measurement .

What Std txt book quantum physics says is that the uncertainty has nothing to do with the measurement .

They say the uncertainty will always be there never decreasing even as technology advances .. in a million million years no matter how advanced protocols can be the uncertainty will still be there . It like a God to them .
Because it is eternal .. eternal fundamental uncertainty .. sounds a bit more like eternal suffering tho .

The thing is they attribute the uncertainty to the quantum energy/electron when it is not seated there .. the uncertainty is due to the Sum complexity of the Background quantum Field plus the experimental setup , including the information gathering protocol and whatever other variable we might not even have words for yet .

So yes the quantum energy has a discrete position .. referenced as the point of highest density of the waveform - that would be for instance like the centre point of this waveform animation .



And yes , the Quantum waveform has an effective discrete momentum being the direction and velocity vector of that floating centre point of highest probability .

So these discrete and complex numbers do metaphysically exist .
Thats why to insist that these things knowable in themselves cannot be known is actually to present them .. or we could say force them onto the population them as "unknowable knowledge" .


Edited by cleeen (04/10/08 04:35 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheWall
DayTripper
Male


Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 101
Loc: BigEasy
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8266167 - 04/10/08 08:00 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I'm reading a book that one of the leading string therorsits wrote called "The Elegant Universe", and in the beggining of the book they give you a background of how normal physics works etc.
And in part they are talking about how muons form out of pure nothing, just form in the fabric of space, and live for a few seconds, the self explode sending out particles.
Well, in conclusion to that, they make a muons lifespand much longer by using a particle accelerator, sending it shy of light speed cauing its life span to be almost infinite.
At any rate, qhwn you are in motion(speed)time is slowed down. Its a hard concept to understand, but its proven.

And as far as the observing argument goes.
Say you have jim and slim, jim is going down the highway at light speed(299 792 458 m / s)(theoretical of course), and slim is down the road at a somewhat finsih line. As jim rides across that line at light speed, slim using a precise timer, will see how long it takes for the front of the car to the back of the car to go over the line.
With doing that slim can get the length of the car.
With solving that he can find the length of the car.
When the car is sent from the factory, it is measured at 8 feet 9 inches.
After slim gets his calculations, the car will be measured at lets say 8 feet and a millionth of a centimeter off.
Why so?
not only does time slow down, objects are shortend.
I had to ask my physics teacher to explain this concept for me, really tripped my mind our for a while. Its crazy how these forces of nature are so weird.
what causes them, everything. One day when TOE is figured out, then we will be able to truly advance into the universe.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheWall]
    #8266376 - 04/10/08 08:34 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Ahhh, the thread was dieing and you resurrected it  :fishslap:

Anyway, I read that book too.  Its good stuff.  If you want to post about relativity or string theory, try bumping another thread, or making your own.

This thread has been seriously crapped up by nonsense.  Its a train wreak. 
:kingtard:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemaggotz


Registered: 06/24/06
Posts: 7,539
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
    #8266416 - 04/10/08 08:41 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

i've been wanting to read that for some time now. anybody have it in pdf flavor?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheWall
DayTripper
Male


Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 101
Loc: BigEasy
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
    #8266748 - 04/10/08 09:54 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Ahhh, the thread was dieing and you resurrected it  :fishslap:

Anyway, I read that book too.  Its good stuff.  If you want to post about relativity or string theory, try bumping another thread, or making your own.

This thread has been seriously crapped up by nonsense.  Its a train wreak. 
:kingtard:



Yeah, I've been thinking about making a thread on the discussion.
But I didnt want to take the time to lay it out and people flame/shit on it.
This weekend I'll make a thread on it.
but commie, do you have a background in physics, or just study it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheWall]
    #8266893 - 04/10/08 10:24 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Im a physics major, almost done with my degree.  But I am just an undergrad, so i am basically still physics noob sauce.  There are a few here with real physics knowledge.  Some of them posted a bunch in this thread (Ill let you guess who :wink: )

There was some thread I posted a bunch of shit about relativity in lately.  I dont remember what it was.  I think I was high when posting alot of it, so I dont know how coherent it was.  :stoned:

:einstein:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
    #8268160 - 04/11/08 04:19 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:


Unfortunately for Heisenberg, developments in modern technology have allowed scientists to show that the path of a sub-atomic particle is very real. It is common to observe particle paths in high-energy physics experiments, where both the position and the velocity can be determined to within less than the uncertainty limit.


A bubble chamber photograph showing the
paths of charged particles in a magnetic field


Heisenberg defended his position against such evidence by saying that his uncertainty principle was only relevant to predicting the future. But he also said that “this knowledge of the past is of a purely speculative nature…It is a matter of personal belief whether such a calculation concerning the past history of the electron can be ascribed any physical reality or not."




--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* String Theory and Quantum Physics.
( 1 2 all )
ergot 5,216 24 01/03/04 01:02 AM
by MarioNett
* An interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (inspired by psychedelics!) BellumDeorum 677 4 10/22/23 06:49 PM
by Nillion
* Physics help sh1ver 2,082 2 12/25/03 11:39 AM
by micro
* Cool physics site micro 590 1 12/30/03 12:51 AM
by Metaxas
* Am I missing something? Or is the big bang bullshit?
( 1 2 3 all )
Flux 8,495 47 01/29/04 04:48 PM
by Shmoppy McGillicuddy
* Hawking cracks black hole paradox MAIA 1,381 6 07/27/04 09:50 AM
by MAIA
* Nothing exists MushyMay 1,206 8 03/11/03 10:23 AM
by iconoclast
* Huston, we have a problem. AnnoA 1,252 11 04/20/03 11:20 AM
by Seuss

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
16,933 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.