Verbatim Excerpts from Science Forum/Debate (Google) follows
G’bye Quantum Wierdness; Hi Wavicle’s
Streamlined (verbatim) version
of ‘ScienceForum & Debate’ (via GOOGLE).
................................................

1. 07-27-2004, 05:02 AM #1
Radical Edward
Alucard

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Meme Pool
Posts: 1,902

GOODBYE QUANTUM WIERDNESS
An experiment performed by Shahriar S. Afshar has raised serious doubts about both the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and, to boot, the many-worlds interpretation. Recall that to date it was thought that all interpretations of QM would predict exactly the same phenomena. However, Afshar's experiment has shown an effect that violates complementarity and partitioned universe.

The experiment is very simple - it's a standard 2-slit affair, with the following modification: observe the dark bands in the standard experiment, and place wires in these dark areas. These regions are where the wave models destructively interfere. Ergo there is "nothing" there to detect. However, the wires would scatter particles if they were present - and it turns out they do. For the first time, we observe "photons" behaving as particles and waves at the same time (in the same universe). Bye-bye Copenhagen. Bye-bye Everett.

If this experimental result can be replicated - and it seems trivial to do - it may well spell the end of such notions as "photons"... and who knows what for electrons and so on? The favoured interpretation of QM may well become the Transactional model (based on de Broglie's original "pilot wave" theory); the required wierdness in this model comes from allowing waves to propogate backwards in time. This - whilst counter-intuitive - seems considerably less radical and unpleasant than Bohr's idea that the real world is "unknowable", and most scientists would admit that time is a poorly understood aspect of the world.

http://www.rowan.edu/news/display_a...m?ArticleID=965
__________________
Badger Mushroom Snake

*******************
07-27-2004, 09:58 AM

#2
yourdadonapogos
Organism

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Area 51
Posts: 1,05
how do they know where the dark bands will be to place the wires?

*************************

07-28-2004, 04:03 AM #3
Radical Edward
Alucard

&
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Meme Pool
Posts: 1,902
you can work that out using basic diffraction models, by calculating the points at which constructive and destructuve interference occur for two waves of identical phase.
__________________

Badger Mushroom Snake
***************

07-28-2004, 09:16 AM #4

Cap'n Refsmmat
Primate

&
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lemme check... driver?
can you stop?
Posts: 2,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Edward
- it may well spell the end of such notions as "photons"...

It will WHAT?

************************

07-28-2004, 10:14 AM #5
yourdadonapogos
Organism


Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Area 51
Posts: 1,059

is the pattern always the same for the same light scource the same distance, from the same two slots?

******************

07-30-2004, 02:21 AM #6
Radical Edward
Alucard

&
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Meme Pool
Posts: 1,902

yeap, basic diffraction stuff.
__________________
Badger Mushroom Snake


***************************

07-30-2004, 03:57 AM #7
This is rather bad news for the Copenhagen interpretation then, although the experiment and its conclusions have to be subject to peer review.
__________________
Dave
Mathematics Forum Moderator

dave
View Public Profile
Send a private message to dave
Visit dave's homepage!
Find More Posts by dave
Add dave to Your Buddy List
08-08-2004, 05:02 PM #8

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I'm interested to see whether there's been any new developments on this. I've been observing from a distance, but it seems that there hasn't really been a lot of progress with the entire peer-review stuff.
__________________

Dave Mathematics Forum Moderator

***************************

08-09-2004, 04:58 AM #9
TheProphet
Baryon
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 148

Read the article.. And i'll try to get hold of that number of New Scientist aswell! And i'll keep an watchfull eye after the one Photon experiment! HEnce this is truely interesting!
********************************
08-11-2004, 06:33 AM #10
Severian
Baryon

&
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 146

The interference bands only have a one dimensional line where the destructive interference is entire. Around that line, the interference band will be dark but not completly absent of light. So unless the wires are infinitely thin (which I presume they are not) the experiment shows nothing at all, because the measurement is still capable of collapsing the wavefunction.

***********************

08-22-2004, 06:00 AM #11
Kent Benjamin Robertson
(Equus, KaiduOrkhon, Aka The White Mongol, etceteras.)
Quark
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 26

Would it be adequately brief and readable of Equus to suggest that Sir Arthur Eddington's 'waveicles' are being re-encountered here?
Weren't DeBroglie & Schroedinger on or near the very same wave length(s)?

Didn't Einstein say, 'There is no space empty of field'? And that 'the notion of discrete, discontinuous ('billiard-ball like') particles with distinct surfaces separating them from surrounding space, is based on prejudice'? (Paraphrased. IDEAS & OPINIONS, Pt. II: Contributions to Science.)

When a circle representing a particle is divided into four 90 dg quadrants, and that circle is called a 4-D particle, and that particle has never been found (- even 'Particle Physics' has become a Standard of Reality that doesn't realistically qualify as anything more than an hypothesis)...

Isn't this an a priori standardization (based on subjective anthropomorphic senses) overruling emperically resolved experimental resolution, scientific heresy?

Don't the four 90 dg quadrants composing a consummate 'circle' represent the four dimensions Einstein discovered in everything that was previously considered three dimensional? Isn't the definition for physical dimensions the right angle motion (of whatever) out of the dimension preceding it?

A=geometric point. B=geometric point moving in (and thereby generating) a one dimensional straight line? When that one dimensional straight line A to B, moves at right angles to itself, B to C, does that not constitute the geometric progression from a dimensionless geometric point (A), to a one dimensional straight line (A-B), and does not that straight line B - C become a two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90dg) to itself?

The resulting two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90 dg) to itself, doesn't that generate a three dimensional space, occupied or unoccupied by matter?

Does not every expedition in search of a 'particle', so far, return only with increasing evidence that there are only charges of electricity, emitting longer or shorter frequencies of electricity and magnetism, *always having the same value?

*The shorter (ultraviolet related) waves being more dense, and the longer (infrared related) waves being more tenuous - and that 'there is no contact between physical systems', since such event requires the interaction of two or more discontinuous 'surfaces', and that such discrete, discontinuous boundaries continue to elude our - post hoc ergo prompter hoc - perception of what consistently proves to be ('surfaceless') 'contact' and 'collision': confined to an a priori subjective interpretation; without an objective leg, stool or platform to stand, sit or enjoy an encore upon?

(Ph.D 'particle physicists': Quo Vadis?)

'No two particles ever come into contact. When they get 'too close', they move off'.
- Bertrand Russell, THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

Charges of electricity that fulfill the formal definition for 'material particle'; that is, microcosmic entities that occupationally demand three or more dimensions of space, disallow the simultaneous occupation of it's space by any other 'particle' (surfaceless charge of electricity), and possesses negative and positive inertia... (Heavy and Inert Mass)...

Didn't Einstein prove that 'three dimensional matter is actually four dimensional', and that the previously unrecognized (so called, 'incomprehensible', 'unimaginable') 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion?
Are not the above described progressions of dimensions generated by moving at right angles - ninety degrees - from the preceding dimension?

Doesn't this geometric law of right angle moving, progressively generated dimensions, require all three dimensional entities to be moving at right angles to themselves: in one of two possible directions, either constantly growing smaller, or constantly growing larger (in either case, at right angles to the three recognized dimensions constituting any such entity) - in order to fulfill their Einsteinian and geometric proved identity as four dimensional entities?

Is not the physical universe consistently found - while remaining unrecognized: as constantly growing larger - moving at right angles to all three of it's dimensions, fulfilling it's obligation to be four dimensional, or, constantly growing smaller - moving at right angles to all three of it's recognized dimensions. in either case, fulfilling its established(if 'incomprehensible' and 'unimaginable') identity as 4-dimensional?

Doesn't this correspond to the four ninety degree quadrants making up a circle? And, if and when anything moves at right angles out of that four dimensional circle, isn't whatever that may be, obliged to be identified as the 5th dimension (moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter)?

Isn't electricity in fact generated by four dimensional matter, and isn't it observed to be constantly moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter, and, doesn't that require the arbiters of scientific definitions and nomenclature to recognize and identify electricity as the 5th dimension: moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter? Wouldn't that 5th ninety degree quadrant be obliged to occur outside the four quadrants that fulfill and complete a circle?

Might not the transition of a fifth ninety degree quadrant exponentially constitute what is otherwise the unexplained 'quantum leap', furthermore explaining why each such 5th ninety degree quadrant generated by and projected from the 4 ninety degree quad circle of 4-D matter it is an extension of, always has the same value - 'just like photons', i.e., Planck's Constant h factor? (Which is considered a contradiction of field physics, rather than an extensional consequence of it... )

Could not that so called 3-D 'particle' in this way be recognized as a 4-D charge of expanding electricity, emitting 'quantum leaps'; invariably having the same uniform values - the issued 5th ninety degree quadrant (obliged to occur outside of and be projected by the 4-D matter that emits it)?

Moreover, doesn't magnetism invariably accompany electricity, and doesn't it invariably move at right angles to electricity, and isn't that a requirement for those 'professionals' in charge of paying attention to and interpreting such dynamics, to recognize and identify magnetism as the 6th dimension...?

Since Einstein proved formerly perceived '3-D matter' is actually 4-Dimensional, and that the 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion (modifying 'space and time', to 'space-time', because the 'two' were then recognized as being inseparable), and the laws of geometric progression require 3-D entities to be moving at right angles to all three of their recognized dimensions, having one of two alternatives therefore, of constantly moving at right angles from themselves, growing ever smaller, as the '4-D space-time continuum', or, growing ever larger, as the 4-D space-time continuum.

If: Einstein and the laws of the progression of dimensions are correct, and since objects released above the earth's surface don't 'fall upward' (which would prove a constantly contracting physical universe made up of ever shrinking charges of electricity), but instead, objects released above the earth's surface are observed to 'fall down'....

Doesn't this mean that the object (Newton's apple, for example) doesn't really move from A to B, but rather that the entire coordinate system - the physically expanding earth (and universe), in it's constantly ongoing enlargement, including the uniformly expanding observer and all of his instruments of measurement, are moving from B to A, creating the illusion of the (whatever) 'falling' object, by way of the ever expanding acceleration of the entire coordinate system earth, beneath the 'falling' object, creating the illusion that the object is moving 'downward', rather than that the earth (entire frame of reference) is rising up to meet it....?

Wouldn't this explain what Einstein meant when he said that the apparent parabolically curved trajectory of a thrown baseball or fired cannonball for example, is not actually curved, but is actually straight - a 'geodesic' - because 'space-time curves' around the apparently descending object and generates the illusion of a parabolically trajectoried object...?

Is not the explanation herein, why all objects, regardless of their mass value, 'descend' at the same rate of acceleration and strike the earth at the same time, when simultaneously released from the same height? Since, cannon ball and bb shot are not actually falling at all, but only appearing to do so, due to the ubiquitous uniform expansion of the entire frame of reference, including any and all observers and test object(s)? Revealing the illusion of an apparently falling object; with the earth instead rising-up to overtake, meet and strike it, rather than conversely?
(Re: "Non-absolute space". And, "The universe is finite (*at any given moment in space), but unbounded." - Einstein
(*KBR)

Non mathematically and comprehensively explaining why inert and heavy mass 'coincidentally, cancel each other out', anomalously said to account for what Einstein called 'an astonishing coincidence'.. (and based his entire General Theory of Relativity upon) - otherwise a blatant contradiction of Newton's Laws of Gravity, which clearly require a proportionately increasing gravity generated by a correspondingly larger mass; therefore dictating a scenario of a greater mutual attraction between a falling cannon ball and the earth, than between a falling bb shot and the earth, resulting in what is certainly 'supposed to be' the inevitably faster rate of descent for correspondingly 'heavier' objects (Re: Aristotelian thought - which is reasonable enough, but in this case is - remarkably - inapplicable)...

In this universal status quo, would not a so called 'black hole singularity' actually be a 3-D static object in a 4-D expanding universe; with the 3-D object becoming as small and dense as the 4-D universe became large and uniformly tenuous around it, forever (squared)?

Would this not leave the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy intact, since we are considering the same amount of uniformly expanding energy increasingly distributing itself over ever larger volumes of (metric functional, rather than non-metric absolute) space, where all constantly expanding physical charges (neutrons, protons, electrons, mu mesons, et al) remain relatively the same size and density, without the requirement of 'the spontaneous creation of hydrogen' which caused Bondi, Gold and Hoyle to abandon the otherwise entirely tenable 'Steady State Theory' (Now foregrounding a so called 'Big Bang' to 'explain' the - unexpectedly discovered, 1927 thru '32 spatially expanding universe.)

Whereas, the astrophysical consensus on the structural dynamics of the observed spatially expanding ('beginning') universe proves out that there is no common ('big bang', 'ylem', 'cosmic egg') center from which the ('red shift') expanding universe, expands...

That is, no matter where the observer is located in universal space, the expanding universe exhibits celestial systems, light sources, stars, galaxies, etceteras, to be moving in direct line of sight...

Indicative of a repelling force (What Einstein called the 'Cosmological Constant', symbolizing it in his equations with the Greek letter Lambda - ^) acting out of individual material systems, macrocosmically affirming Bertrand Russell's observation about
microcosmic 'particles' (charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers):
'No two particles (macrocosmic systemic material celestial entitities) ever come into contact, when they get too close, they move off'.
- Bertrand Russell THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

Is not the unexpected and 'unexplained' Relativistic discovery that physical matter contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate proportional to its velocity: because matter is an ever expanding-accelerating field, and that the successful *application by Einstein of the transformations of H.A. Lorentz (who developed the conversions exclusively for the description of field energy) *to so called 'particles', proves that the issued contraction of physical matter is actually 'Doppler effect', as exclusively applicable to field energy...?

If so called falling objects are actually being overtaken and struck by the ever ongoing rising up (acceration @ 32' per " per ") of the entire coordinate system, creating the illusion of 'falling objects' (much as the axial spinning motion of the earth at 24,000 mph, generates the illusion that the sun and celestial vault revolve around it every 24 hours); doesn't this mean that the so called 'impelling (attractive) force' (F) of gravity is actually 'a repelling force' (as Newton offers that gravity may in fact be, *in those words, in his three page Preface to the PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA?)

'The idea that brute, inanimate matter can inexplicably act at a distance across space to influence other matter, is to me so great an absurdity that no man with a competent faculty for thinking could ever fall into it.'
- Isaac Newton, On Universal Gravity
).

Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and projecting through space (gravity