the farce of modern physics

[idunno]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/farce.htm
interesting article.
There are many hidden facts about the origins of men

[idunno]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jse.htm
another good one but i cant comment as im no expert

[idunno]

The experience by Alain Aspect fascinates me cause it seems to show objects can influence one another at longdistances

«It was David Bohm and one of his supporters, John Bell of CERN, who laid most of the theoretical groundwork for the EPR experiments performed by Alain Aspect in 1982 (the original thought-experiment was proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935). These experiments demonstrated that if two quantum systems interact and then move apart, their behavior is correlated in a way that cannot be explained in terms of signals traveling between them at or slower than the speed of light. This phenomenon is known as nonlocality, and is open to two main interpretations: either it involves unmediated, instantaneous action at a distance, or it involves faster-than-light signaling. If nonlocal correlations are literally instantaneous, they would effectively be noncausal; if two events occur absolutely simultaneously, "cause" and "effect" would be indistinguishable, and one of the events could not be said to cause the other through the transfer of force or energy, for no such transfer could take place infinitely fast. There would therefore be no causal transmission mechanism to be explained, and any investigations would be »

[Magyar]

apparently you can't comment on either one, so we're left guessing at what your point or rather lack there of is. Are you just waisting bandwidth?

[Dancing David]

I am not sure what you want people to say idunno, I read a little bit of the first link. And made it to about the weak and strong forces. The author seems to not really understand the way theories work althougth the opening is pretty good.

But what the author does not understand is that quarks don't have to exist for the theory to be a good one, if the quak theory makes predictions about reality, and it does, and they match observation, which they do, then it is a good theory.

The author seems to forget that reality does not have to meet our expectations, if the theory uses a zero dimensional partciles and it makes valid predictions that is all that matters.

This quote from later is fairly indicative

The famous ‘uncertainty principle’ formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927 says that it is impossible to simultaneously measure with precision both the position and momentum of a particle, or the energy and duration of an energy-releasing event; the uncertainty can never be less than Planck’s constant (h). It goes without saying that some measurement uncertainty must exist, since any measurement must involve the exchange of at least one photon of energy which disturbs the system being observed in an unpredictable way. Obviously, the fact that we don’t know the exact properties of a particle or the exact path it follows does not mean that it doesn’t follow a definite trajectory or possess any definite properties unless we are trying to observe it. But this was the interpretation proposed by Danish physicist Niels Bohr, and most physicists in the 1920s followed his lead, giving rise to the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.



They blew it right there when they say that particles could take a definite path, that is not an accurate statement.

It doesn't matter, theory says that they are smeared out by the HIP and that is what the data show. So the author's preference for the HIP to not be real is foolish, photons do interact with electrons, electrons are smeared out by observation.

I would hate to see what the author thinks of Feynman's 'sum over histrories'.

Further on the author makes this great exclamation:

The idea that particles can turn into ‘probability waves’, which are no more than abstract mathematical constructs, and that these abstractions can ‘collapse’ into a real particle is yet another instance of physicists succumbing to a mathematical contagion – the inability to distinguish between abstractions and concrete systems.


So they totally misunderstand that particles are waves, all the time, the Schroedinger equations are not abstractions there are accurate descriptions of the behavior of particles.

Otherwise we would never have 'quantum tunneling' or fusion in the sun's core.

[sol invictus]

Otherwise we would never have 'quantum tunneling' or fusion in the sun's core.

It must be very confusing being a crackpot. I wonder what he thinks of things like scanning tunneling microscopes, thousands of which are in use around the globe? Not to mention transistors, without which it would be rather hard to have a website...

[Olowkow]

I have always had a hard time getting a grasp on uncertainty, but as Brian Greene explains it, the uncertainly is at the core of physical theory, not just that you "affect the position" by the measurement. This is the common misperception of the H. U. Principle. But in fact, my understanding of Greene is that it goes much deeper. It doesn't matter whether you know precisely the magnitude of the perturbation, you still cannot know both position and momentum with great precision.

Sort of like the position becomes smeared, when you "know" the momentum, and vice versa.

The way I try to visualize it, though this is just an analogy, is the following:

Try to take a picture of a speeding bullet. Very high shutter speed, gives you the position with great precision...no blur. So, as a result, you cannot get the speed with great accuracy. At very slow shutter speed, lots of blur which gives speed information, but location is now uncertain.

Any help with this would be appreciated.

[Ziggurat]

The entire discussion of the uncertainty principle is a farce. They say, "For example, the momentum and position of an electron in a hydrogen atom are known to a precision six orders of magnitude greater than is permitted by the uncertainty principle." This is simply false. I suspect that what they did was look at the precision with which we know the expectation value of position and momentum. But the uncertainty principle isn't actually about the precision with which we know an expectation value, it's about the standard deviation. Hydrogen orbitals do not voilate the uncertainty principle if you actually know what the principle says. It's a mathematical statement, and as such easy for people who don't do math (gee, not a single equation on the page - no surprise there) to misinterpret. But that's the author's problem, not the theory's. Considering how badly and completely they flubbed this, I don't expect better from the rest of the page, and I'm not going to bother reading any more.

[shadron]

There are many hidden facts about the origins of men

I think I just found one inside the open mayonnaise jar in the fridge.

[Elvis666]

I think I just found one inside the open mayonnaise jar in the fridge.

Don't do that. You made me laugh out loud at my desk.

[Dancing David]

Do you have a coffee shield for your monitor and keyboard?

Welcome!

[soylent]

Sort of like the position becomes smeared, when you "know" the momentum, and vice versa.

The way I try to visualize it, though this is just an analogy, is the following:

Try to take a picture of a speeding bullet. Very high shutter speed, gives you the position with great precision...no blur. So, as a result, you cannot get the speed with great accuracy. At very slow shutter speed, lots of blur which gives speed information, but location is now uncertain.

Any help with this would be appreciated.

I only had a smattering of quantum mechanics but I'll try.

Short explanation: In quantum mechanics the momentum wave function and position wave function of a particle are related through a fourier transform.

Long/simplified explanation: There are several wave functions. The ones you are interested in are the position and momentum wave functions. Wave functions in quantum mechanics are complex functions who's absolute square is the probabillity density function(PDF).

PDFs are fairly straight forward. You can directly assign a probabillity to something discrete, like a coin toss, but this doesn't work here. A continuous variable would be like trying to assign a probabillity for an infinite sided die. What you is to instead look at the density of probabillity, so that when you integrate over some region of space you get the probabillity of an event inside the range of outcomes you integrated over. If you integrate the PDF over all of space you get unity; i.e. a particle must be somewhere or must have some momentum.

In quantum mechanics the momentum wave function and position wave function of a particle are related through a fourier transform. If you know your linear algebra for finite dimensional vectors(e.g. vectors in 3D), you'll know that for a euklidian basis the components of a vector in the coordinate system is simply the projection of the vector on the unit vectors as calculated by a dot product(also known as Euklidian inner product).

It turns out that you can do much the same thing with functions; consider functions as 'infinite dimensional vectors'(f(x) for all possible values of x are the components of the vector). Inner product is replaced with the integral of the product of two functions(makes sense if you think of the integration as a kind of sum). Orthogonal(perpendicular) vectors are replaced with functions whose inner product is 0(just like the dot product of two perpendicular vectors). You can then change base from x to an infinite set of orthogonal functions just like in the case of regular vectors. In the case of the fourier transform over an unbounded interval with a continous variable the chosen basis is sin(2pi*f*x) and cos(2pi*f*x) for all frequencies f. If you represent cos as the real part and sin as the imaginary part of a 'complex' frequency you simplify the appearance of the math somewhat(use euler's formula). The inverse of the fourier transform is essentially another fourier transform.

Given a wave function for a particle, considering the 1D case for simplicity. A wavefunction that corresponds to having no clue where the particle is at all is simply sin(2pi*f*x) + icos(2pi*f*x) because when you take the absolute square you get sin(x)^2 + cos(x)^2 = 1(you'll run into trouble trying to normalize such a PDF, but this is an ideal case.). Now consider the momentum, since it's proportional to the frequencies after our fourier transform, it's going to be a constant times f with no other possible values.

Since the inverse of a fourier transform is like a fourier transform in itself you can see that a particle with an exact position can have any momentum at all.

In a more realistic case you'll use a limited wave packet of some sort for position. It turns out to be a general property of fourier transforms that the more limited in spatial extents your wavepacket is, the larger the range of frequencies it has to be composed off. A special case is the gaussian; here the fourier transform is a new gaussian who's standard deviation is inversely proportional to the first.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a rule that puts a lower limit on the product of the uncertainty(think standard deviation) of position and momentum stemming from the properties of fourier transforms.

An interesting consequence of the uncertainty principle is that atoms don't just collapse. Classically the electron would just emit bremsstrahlung(braking radiation) and go down an infinitely deep potential well as it gets ever closer to the proton. In quantum mechanics, confining the atom to a small region around the nucleus means that the uncertainty in it's momentum goes up. At some point the energy reaches a minimum as the average momentum would get so high that it increased the energy of the electron if the atom where to get any smaller.

[Olowkow]

@Soylent
Thank you, I will read this again, and again. :confused: I should have taken calculus in college. I do understand for the most part. Putting in terms of Fourier transformations helps me visualize somewhat. I get that part, and Gaussian distributions, but...

Is it fair to say that the "measurement" affecting the position etc. is a bogus notion for these discussions? Or did I get that wrong too?

Does my "bullet analogy" above have any relevance at all? Or should I just dump this from my brain?

Thanks.

[Ziggurat]

Is it fair to say that the "measurement" affecting the position etc. is a bogus notion for these discussions? Or did I get that wrong too?

It's not bogus. But the uncertainty principle is a mathematical property of the wave function itself, whether it's measured or not. It applies regardless of any measurement, though it is relevant to the measurement process as well (since we still have a wave function after we perform our measurement, even though it's perturbed).

Does my "bullet analogy" above have any relevance at all? Or should I just dump this from my brain?

Just don't try to push the analogy too far. The uncertainty principle has a definite mathematical formalism, and while analogies might be helpful for getting a "feel" for it, it isn't going to share that mathematical formalism.

[ingoa]

Dear [...],
You're saying that the "potentially valuable information" on my website will become "totally uninteresting" and the work of a "charlatan" unless I've been to a university? I like your sense of humour. I have university qualifications in modern languages, translation, and technical sciences. But I regard this as irrelevant, because I think that what anybody says or writes should be judged on its intrinsic merits. Many of my articles are about fundamental differences of opinion between scientists with equally excellent credentials in a particular field. So a university education does not preclude serious errors, even in one's own specialism. I'm also a great believer in self-education.
Regards,
David Pratt

(Pratt about himself on his web site)

His take on credentials says it all.

The whole web site is first class woo. Although I must admit that it is more interesting woo than usual (and better written too).

[Schneibster]

Soylent, nice. Thanks much.

[soylent]

@Soylent
Thank you, I will read this again, and again. :confused: I should have taken calculus in college.

But... you did get some calculus in high school right?

Is it fair to say that the "measurement" affecting the position etc. is a bogus notion for these discussions? Or did I get that wrong too?

The absolute value of the waveform is the probabillity density function. Unless the probabillity density function after measurement has a standard deviation smaller or equal to the one you claim for your measurement you cannot have measured it to the accuracy you claim. As such measuring position accurately in one direction nescessarily forces your waveform to shrink toghether around your measurement in that direction.

As far as the uncertainty principle is concerned there's nothing special about measuring. It does not matter how the waveform is made to change; it's simply a mathematical result that the product of the standard deviations must be larger than or equal to half of planck's constant.

Einstein's famous "god does not play dice" comment is in relation to the waveform concept in quantum mechanics. At the time he was unsatisfied with the idea that reality could be statistical in nature, that a particle did not have an accurate position in reality until you measured it and 'forced' the particle to take a 'stance'. It has since been shown that if the particle really did have an exact position unbeknownst to quantum mechanics(a so called hidden variable theory) this would force your theory to include some even more absurd things.

Does my "bullet analogy" above have any relevance at all? Or should I just dump this from my brain?

Not quite. It's a decent analogy as far as the uncertainty principle goes. The big problem with the analogy is that bullets really do have a definite position and momentum for all intents and purposes(not that they are immune to the uncertainty principle, but their mass is enormous compared to an electron).

Do you remember experiments with waves on water in highschool physics? I think that might be a better analogy. If you have a parallel wavefront you can't really say that the wave has a definite position; it's sort of smeared out along this big front. But you can see that all parts of the wave travel in the same direction. If it passes through a slit, suddenly you can localize the wave to inside this opening with good precision(as long as only a little of the wave is reflected by the barrier making up the slit). When it emerges on the other side of the slit it spreads out in all directions; now you can't attribute a definite direction to it anymore. If you use a larger slit the wave won't spread out as much as it passes through the slit and you can give an approximate direction and position.

Both waves and particles are crude models of real particles; real particles behave like some strange wave-particle thing with an amalgamation of characteristics from both classical waves and classical particles.

[Olowkow]

@Soylent.

Calculus....my mom was a math teacher, my uncle a math professor, my cousin a math genius and electronics engineer...me? I liked trig and algebra, and had a mental block at calculus. I still confuse integrals and differentials.

I have to visualize things or I have trouble. I do appreciate your efforts.

It has since been shown that if the particle really did have an exact position unbeknownst to quantum mechanics(a so called hidden variable theory) this would force your theory to include some even more absurd things.

This I think I got from reading Brian Greene's books. I get the general idea, and of course I understand that "bullets are not particles", and the difference when talking of the dual slit experiment.

I guess I won't even mention "entanglement". That one really has me in a "twitter".:rolleyes:

[soylent]

@Soylent.

Calculus....my mom was a math teacher, my uncle a math professor, my cousin a math genius and electronics engineer...me? I liked trig and algebra, and had a mental block at calculus. I still confuse integrals and differentials.

Try connecting it with physical things.

The integration sign originally stood for sum; it's was an elongated S that has since morphed into it's own symbol. It can be seen the area under a curve. Appromately you could write such a sum as f(x0)*dx + f(x0+dx)*dx + f(x0+2*dx)... f(x1-2*dx)*dx + f(x1-dx)*dx, for each little step dx between two boundaries x0 and x1. By a mathematical trick you can compute many such sums exactly with an ifinitesimally small interval dx.

If you know the velocity as a function of time the integral over some period of time is the change in position. If you know the tension in a spring as a function of how much it is stretched, the integral over some interval is the amount of work done in stretching it. If you know the rate liquid is flowing out of a faucet as a function of time the integral over some interval of time is the amount of liquid that has flown out of the faucet. Integrals can be generalized to curves, surfaces and volumes to cover more interesting concepts. The volume integral of density(as a function of position) is is mass. The surface integral over pressure is a force. The volume integral over the absolute square of a quantum mechanical wave function for a particle is the probabillity of finding that particle inside the volume; the integral sums the probabillity density(probabillity/volume) times the infinitesimal volume dV, for each distinct dV inside the volume.

Derivatives are rates of change as is clear by the notation df/dt. The df symbolizes the change over a time dt, df = f(t+dt) - f(t). By taking the limit for dt -> 0 you get the instantaneous rate of change.

If you know the position of a particle as a function of time, the derivative is the velocity. The derivative of the number on the electric meter for your home is power consumption. The derivative of the amount of fuel in a gas tank is the rate at which fuel is used.

It is also possible to take the opposite of derivative and get back the original function(albeit with an undetermined constant; as the rate of change in a constant is 0 and won't show up in a derivative). The fundamental theorem of calculus connects integrals with anti-derivatives.

[3bodyproblem]

The nature of duality lends itself readily to "Woo". It's much easier to explain than comprehend.

[becomingagodo]

It has since been shown that if the particle really did have an exact position unbeknownst to quantum mechanics(a so called hidden variable theory) this would force your theory to include some even more absurd things.
Can you explain?

And don't mention Bell's inequality.

[sol invictus]

Can you explain?

And don't mention Bell's inequality.

There's no way to explain that without mentioning Bell's inequality... What soylent was probably referring to are so-called non-local hidden variable theories. Such theories can be made consistent with quantum mechanics (specifically Bell), but they are non-local and probably inconsistent with relativity and causality.

[soylent]

Can you explain?

And don't mention Bell's inequality.

Erm... why am I to not mention Bell's inequality?

I think I can clarify sol invictus' answer a little. Non-local here implies faster than light causal relations between disparate entities.

[Supercharts]

Soylent,

Your explanation about Calculus in a few short paragraphs is outstanding. You have explained Calculus so well (In an introductory manner) that you have saved reading the first 7 chapters of any college math book.

[Kooz]

"4. ... But if we want to find the direct causes of events, we have to look to real substances, energies, forces, and entities, whether physical or superphysical. A host of phenomena, and even the very existence of physical matter and force, point to the existence of deeper, subtler levels of reality. As far as physics is concerned, this means thinking in terms of an energetic ether."

That wasn't a tipoff to anyone?