[Merged] Quantum Ring Theory: Evidence for photon and neutron models - Page 2

INRM · 13th June 2011, 06:43 PM

What's Quantum Ring Theory...

Reality Check · 13th June 2011, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Of course.
Because you know Steinberg' experiment BETTER than the own Steinberg

HA HA HA

Of course it is stupid to think that I know Steinberg' experiment BETTER than Steinberg.
Just like it is stupid to rely in a news article.

It is Steinberg and his co-authors who state that they use a double-slit interferometer and do not state that they closed a slit.
Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer

Quote:

A consequence of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle is that one may not discuss the path or “trajectory” that a quantum particle takes, because any measurement of position irrevocably disturbs the momentum, and vice versa. Using weak measurements, however, it is possible to operationally define a set of trajectories for an ensemble of quantum particles. We sent single photons emitted by a quantum dot through a double-slit interferometer and reconstructed these trajectories by performing a weak measurement of the photon momentum, postselected according to the result of a strong measurement of photon position in a series of planes. The results provide an observationally grounded description of the propagation of subensembles of quantum particles in a two-slit interferometer.

(my emphasis added)

Reality Check · 13th June 2011, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

What's Quantum Ring Theory...

It is an crank theory published (as far as I know) just in a book, not in any peer-reviewed literature.

All sorts of the usual non-science we see from physics cranks, e.g. photons magically traveling in "helical trajectories", neutrons are protons + electrons, pretty pictures = science, etc.

If you are really interested then a few pages have been analysed in why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct thread, e.g. Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank.

Reality Check · 13th June 2011, 07:15 PM

pedrone, Another reason that all of the single particle double-slit experiments invalidate QRT:

QRT states that the photon only "knows" about the single silt that it passes through and magically decides to interact with its imaginary "helical trajectory" to produce an interference pattern. You have to wonder how a QFT photon knows that it is alone and there are no other photons going through a slit that it does not know about

! But there is probably an an imaginary "electromagnetic" thingy in the crank's book to explain this.

QM states that the photon basically passes through both slits and interferes with itself.

Simple prediction then

QRT predicts that the distance between the slits has no effect on the pattern.
QM predicts that the distance between the slits has shifts the positions of the interference fringes.

Experimental result:

The position of the interference fringes depends on the distance between the slits exactly as predicted by QM.
With actual numbers rather than your waffling on about QFT!

Conclusion: QFT is bunk!

P.S. If you want to see the pattern then the second figure in Watching Photons Interfere: "Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer" shows it at various distances from the slits. Look for

Quote:

Yeah, there's a lot going on in this one. The four parts of this figure plot two different things for each of four different distances behind the slits, with the distance increasing as you go down.

Wow - someone else who thinks that there are 2 slits!

Reality Check · 13th June 2011, 07:20 PM

The secret lives of photons revealed

Quote:

In the double slit experiment, a beam of light is shone onto a screen through two slits, which results in an interference pattern on the screen. The paradox was that one could not tell which slit single photons had passed through, as measuring this would directly distort the interference pattern on the screen. “In most science, it is possible to look at what a system is doing presently and so, determine its past or future. But in quantum mechanics, it is considered inconceivable to consider the past at all.” says physicist Aephraim Steinberg of the Centre for Quantum Information and Quantum Control at the University of Toronto, Canada who has led this new research.

(my emphasis)

aggle-rithm · 13th June 2011, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

And the new experiment not only corroborates Quantum Ring Theory. The new experiment also denies Quantum Mechanics.

Oh, that makes it simple!

It's wrong.

Thanks for saving me the time I would have spent following that link.

Dorman · 13th June 2011, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Dorman,
tell us what you know about the photon model of Quantum Ring Theory, and show us what is just wrong in what the zpenergy link says.

It's easy to say: "that is wrong"

Even a child can say it.

But a serious person (which probably is not a child) must prove what he says.

So, prove that you are a serious person: prove what you claim

The link says the following about QM:
"According to Quantum Mechanics, a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as a particle at the same time."

This is a wrong statement (it is normally used in a loose sense, but while discussing a serious matter, one should be more precise.)
In many situations, the behavior of a quantum particle (say, a photon) can be approximated as a wave or a particle. But that does not mean that QM forbids it from showing both characteristics at the same time.
Indeed, QM predicts that a photon should show both behaviors at the same time, given the right conditions. This is what the experiment was designed to check, and this is what is showed. (They of course did not show a single photon showing both behaviors, but an ensemble of photons showing both behaviors on the average.)

The statements of the website about QM ("... and the results show that Quantum Mechanics is wrong") are therefore wrong.

I do not know anything about Quantum Ring Theory. It may well also be consistent with the experiment. But I see no reason to be interested in it, since QM seems to do the job for me. I may look at QRT when some experiment shows QM to be incorrect. By that time, it presumably will also have reproduced many of the successes of QM. Till then, there are many other interesting things to do research in, which is what a serious person should do.

-Dorman

Tubbythin · 14th June 2011, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Elusive truths

1. A quantum particle can behave like a particle or a wave, but not both simultaneously.

2. You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it.

Point 2 does not make any sense in terms of basic English. Point 1 is complete nonsense.

sol invictus · 14th June 2011, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by pedrone

And the new experiment not only corroborates Quantum Ring Theory. The new experiment also denies Quantum Mechanics.

See in the link:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=3295

I have no idea what "quantum ring theory" is, but the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM. Anyone claiming otherwise must demonstrate mathematically that the results are inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation.

We're waiting.

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

pedrone,
I can read. I can read the abstract of the Steinberg experiment. I do not have to rely on a news article like you.
I also know more physics than the reporter.
HA HA HA HA

The reporter got those "elusive truths" correct but then appled them wrongly in :

Dont say foolishes, Reality Check.

Do you think the reporter did his own intepretation of the experiment ??????

Do you really believe what you said ??????

Gee... you kill me with laughter

The reporter did not interpret the Steinberg experiment. The reporter only wrote just what Steinberg said in the interview.

Everything written by the reporter transmits the Steinberg's interpretation on his experiment.

As you have a different interpretation of the experiment, and you are sure that Steinberg interpretation is wrong, then go and tell him to change his wrong intepretation.

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I have no idea what "quantum ring theory" is, but the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM. Anyone claiming otherwise must demonstrate mathematically that the results are inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation.

We're waiting.

Then let's analyse what you claim, dear sol invictus.

1)
A quantum particle can behave like a particle or a wave, but not both simultaneously.

You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it.

These two propositions are recognized as "truths" of quantum mechanics for more than a century.

2)
Now, in a single experiment, a team of physicists brought down the two, showing that quantum mechanics is even more cumbersome and less intuitive than it looked

3)
However, sol invictus claims that the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM.

4)
Conclusion: the own Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong, because:

1- For more than a century the physicists recognized as "truths" the two propositions of quantum mechanics.

2- Steinberg's experiment shows that the two propositions are wrong, and so Quantum Mechanics is wrong

3- But the new Steinberg experiment is agree to Quantum Mechanics

4- Therefore, as Steinberg's experiment is according to Quantum Mechanics, but his experiment also shows that those "truths" of Quantum Mechanics are wrong, this means that Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

Sol Invictus,
you are a genius.
And therefore the physicists are idiots

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

pedrone, Another reason that all of the single particle double-slit experiments invalidate QRT:

QRT states that the photon only "knows" about the single silt that it passes through and magically decides to interact with its imaginary "helical trajectory" to produce an interference pattern. You have to wonder how a QFT photon knows that it is alone and there are no other photons going through a slit that it does not know about

! But there is probably an an imaginary "electromagnetic" thingy in the crank's book to explain this.

QM states that the photon basically passes through both slits and interferes with itself.

Simple prediction then

QRT predicts that the distance between the slits has no effect on the pattern.
QM predicts that the distance between the slits has shifts the positions of the interference fringes.

Experimental result:

The position of the interference fringes depends on the distance between the slits exactly as predicted by QM.
With actual numbers rather than your waffling on about QFT!

Conclusion: QFT is bunk!

P.S. If you want to see the pattern then the second figure in Watching Photons Interfere: "Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer" shows it at various distances from the slits. Look for

Wow - someone else who thinks that there are 2 slits!

Reality Check,
it seems you know very well the photon model of Quantum Ring Theory.

So, as you know, there are repulsive gravitons within the structure of the photon proposed in QRT, as shown in the figure:

In the link bellow you may understand why there is need to consider such repulsive gravity within the photon model:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physic...p=462#more-462

So, Reallity Check, the question is:

in your questioning against QRT, how do you consider the influence of the repulsive gravity ?

Reality Check · 14th June 2011, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Dont say foolishes, Reality Check.
...snipped insanely formated rant...

Don't be so ignorant pedrone:
The secret lives of photons revealed (through two slits)

The fact is that all double-slit experiments only see an interfernece pattern when both slits are open.
That fact is that this experiment has an interference pattern:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

P.S. If you want to see the pattern then the second figure in Watching Photons Interfere: "Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer" shows it at various distances from the slits. Look for

Quote:

Yeah, there's a lot going on in this one. The four parts of this figure plot two different things for each of four different distances behind the slits, with the distance increasing as you go down.

Wow - someone else who thinks that there are 2 slits!

Any one with 2 brain cells will conclude that Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer had 2 slits open.

Reality Check · 14th June 2011, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Reality Check,
it seems you know very well the photon model of Quantum Ring Theory.

in your questioning against QRT, how do you consider the influence of the repulsive gravity ?

Ohhh - idoitic pretty pictures from a crank book!
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank.

You totally ignored the point of the post.
The QRT prediction for the single particle double slit experiment (as suggested by the author of the crank website you linked to) is that the interference pattern is generated by the photon in a slit. It has noting to do with the presence of another slit.

The experimental results are that the photon acts as as if it has passed through both slits. The interference pattern is affected by the distance between the slits.

Thus QRT is bunk!

Tubbythin · 14th June 2011, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

A quantum particle can behave like a particle or a wave, but not both simultaneously.

You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it.

These two propositions are recognized as "truths" of quantum mechanics for more than a century.

I'll repeat. This nonsense. How could the second make sense when it is not even a meaningful sentence. As for the first, please find me evidence that this has been held as a truth of QM for more a century.
OR just to do what Sol said.

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You totally ignored the point of the post.
The QRT prediction for the single particle double slit experiment (as suggested by the author of the crank website you linked to) is that the interference pattern is generated by the photon in a slit. It has noting to do with the presence of another slit.

Why not ?

When there is one slit, the helical trajetory interacts with one slit.

Where there are two slits, the helical trajectory interacts with two slits

Is there need to be a genius to understand so simple question ?

Dancing David · 14th June 2011, 02:50 PM

Pedrone, particles are waves all the time, there is no duality is some Copenhagen sense of superposition. Where is your source for a wave never being a particle?

sol invictus · 14th June 2011, 03:04 PM

I repeat:

Originally Posted by sol invictus

...the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM. Anyone claiming otherwise must demonstrate mathematically that the results are inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation.

We're waiting.

We're still waiting.

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Pedrone, partciles are waves all the time, there is no duality is some Copenhagen sense of superposition.

Who told you ?

God ?

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Where is your source for a wave never being a particle ?

1- Waves cannot be submitted to centripetal acceleration.
If the electron should be a wave, it would be impossible to get the value of a magnetic field crossed by the electron from the calculus of the centripetal acceleration on it (taking in consideration the the electron speed, its mass, and the radius of its trajectory).

2- Waves have no mass
Do you get a wave on a scale and measure the weight of this wave?

3- Waves cannot form a well defined shadow (such as when the sun projects a well defined shadow of a person on the ground).

Newton already knew that.
If Newton knew Quantum Mechanics, he would die from laughing at it

Ah... and God told me that particles are always particles. They are never waves.
The duality is caused by the helical trajectory of particles.

If you have any doubt, ask it to God. He will tell you I'm right.

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I repeat:

We're still waiting.

Why?

You already showed us that the own Quantum Mechanics proved that Quantum Mechanics is wrong...

Tubbythin · 14th June 2011, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

2- Waves have no mass

Huh? The de Broglie wavelength, for a non-relativistic particle, is inversely proportional to its mass!

Tubbythin · 14th June 2011, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Why?

Because that would be how to show that QM is wrong. Not by making some nonsense statements up about what QM says and then claiming these "truths" have been falsified.

Quote:

You already showed us that the own Quantum Mechanics proved that Quantum Mechanics is wrong...

No he didn't.

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Originally Posted by INRM
What's Quantum Ring Theory...

It is an crank theory published (as far as I know) just in a book, not in any peer-reviewed literature.

I rely more on experiments that are confirming the Quantum Ring Theory than in any peer-reviewed literature.

Experiments prove that a theory is correct.

What does a peer-reviewed literature prove ? It proves NOTHING

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Because that would be how to show that QM is wrong. Not by making some nonsense statements up about what QM says and then claiming these "truths" have been falsified.

Go tell it to Steinberg, author of the experience

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

No he didn't.

Yes, he did

Mashuna · 14th June 2011, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Yes, he did

You appear to have forgotten to post the mathematical part of the evidence.

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Huh? The de Broglie wavelength, for a non-relativistic particle, is inversely proportional to its mass!

de Broglie wavelength is caused by the helical trajectory.

This is shown in Quantum Ring Theory.

Besides, de Broglie concept of duality introduces an insurmountable in Quantum Mechanics, as Guglinski shows in his book Quantum Ring Theory.
Guglinski named it The de Broglie Paradox:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/New_de_Broglie's_Paradox

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

You appear to have forgotten to post the mathematical part of the evidence.

Ok, let me prove it mathematically:

1- C is not equal to D

2-According to Quantum Mechanics, A+B = C

3 Steinberg experiment showed that A+B = D

4- Sol Invictus claimed that A+B= D is according to Quantum Mechanics.

5- Therefore, according to Sol Invictus, C= D

CONCLUSIONS:
a) Either the own Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong

b) or Sol Invictus is genius

Tubbythin · 14th June 2011, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Ok, let me prove it mathematically:

1- C is not equal to D

2-According to Quantum Mechanics, A+B = C

3 Steinberg experiment showed that A+B = D

4- Sol Invictus claimed that A+B= D is according to Quantum Mechanics.

5- Therefore, according to Sol Invictus, C= D

CONCLUSIONS:
a) Either the own Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong

b) or Sol Invictus is genius

Or, far more likely, you've completely misunderstood everything.

edd · 14th June 2011, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Ok, let me prove it mathematically:

1- C is not equal to D

Ermm....

Really, I want to join in but I just can't. I want my soul back, and I didn't even believe I had one.

Tubbythin · 14th June 2011, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

de Broglie wavelength is caused by the helical trajectory.

This is shown in Quantum Ring Theory.

You just claimed waves can't have mass. But the de Broglie is related to the mass. So either your statement about waves and mass is wrong or the de Broglie wavelength equation is wrong. In the former case we don't need to take things further, in the latter case the fact that QRT can (allegedly) explain the de Broglie wavelength is utterly irrelevant since it is wrong.

Quote:

Besides, de Broglie concept of duality introduces an insurmountable in Quantum Mechanics, as Guglinski shows in his book Quantum Ring Theory.
Guglinski named it The de Broglie Paradox:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/New_de_Broglie's_Paradox

I haven't even the slightest idea what he is trying to claim on that page. And why on Earth does he keep referring to a Michelson Morley experiment with protons. It is just garbage.

Dancing David · 14th June 2011, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Who told you ?

God ?

1- Waves cannot be submitted to centripetal acceleration.
If the electron should be a wave, it would be impossible to get the value of a magnetic field crossed by the electron from the calculus of the centripetal acceleration on it (taking in consideration the the electron speed, its mass, and the radius of its trajectory).

2- Waves have no mass
Do you get a wave on a scale and measure the weight of this wave?

3- Waves cannot form a well defined shadow (such as when the sun projects a well defined shadow of a person on the ground).

Newton already knew that.
If Newton knew Quantum Mechanics, he would die from laughing at it

Ah... and God told me that particles are always particles. They are never waves.
The duality is caused by the helical trajectory of particles.

If you have any doubt, ask it to God. He will tell you I'm right.

When you become coherent then you can particpiate in the discussion, but until then, I guess not.

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

You just claimed waves can't have mass. But the de Broglie is related to the mass. So either your statement about waves and mass is wrong or the de Broglie wavelength equation is wrong. In the former case we don't need to take things further, in the latter case the fact that QRT can (allegedly) explain the de Broglie wavelength is utterly irrelevant since it is wrong.

According to de Broglie concept of duality, the velocity of the Earth would have to influence the result of th Davison-Germer experiment

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

I haven't even the slightest idea what he is trying to claim on that page. And why on Earth does he keep referring to a Michelson Morley experiment with protons. It is just garbage.

It's a new version of the Michelson-Morley experiment proposed by Guglijnski, by changing the following:

- you replace the light by a flux of proton
- you replace the Michelson interferometer by a cristal

Actually Michelson-Morley experiment for protons is the Davison-Germer experiment made with protons.

Michelson-Morley experiment for electrons have been already made worlwide: it is the Davison-Germer experiment.

As each laboratory in the world (where the Davison-Germer experiment was made) has a different direction of the electron gun, then according to de Broglie theory each laboratory would have to get a different value of the electron wavelenght

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

When you become coherent then you can particpiate in the discussion, but until then, I guess not.

but at least, after your discussion with God, please tell us what he said to you

aggle-rithm · 14th June 2011, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it.

What are you measuring? Its pants size?

No, what quantum mechanics actually says is that it is possible to know the velocity of a particle OR the position of that particle, but not both. This was originally thought to be a problem of measurement, but it turned out to be a fundamental physical truth.

aggle-rithm · 14th June 2011, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

2-According to Quantum Mechanics, A+B = C

Here is where you get tripped up. What is being claimed about quantum physics doesn't accurately represent the facts.

pedrone · 14th June 2011, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

What are you measuring? Its pants size?

No, what quantum mechanics actually says is that it is possible to know the velocity of a particle OR the position of that particle, but not both. This was originally thought to be a problem of measurement, but it turned out to be a fundamental physical truth.

when you measure the velocity of the particle, you are interfering with it (you cannot get its position)

when you measure the position of the particle, you are interfering with it (you cannot get its velocity)

Therefore:
You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it.

ben m · 14th June 2011, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

when you measure the velocity of the particle, you are interfering with it (you cannot get its position)

when you measure the position of the particle, you are interfering with it (you cannot get its velocity)

Incorrect. "you cannot get its velocity" does not mean that you "interfered" with it. To pick a simple example: for a particle in a velocity eigenstate (a plane wave, for example), you can measure its velocity all you like, and it remains an un-interfered-with plane wave. (It's also true that this particle has an ill-determined position, but that was the case before you measured the velocity as well as afterwards.)

This is standard freshman/sophomore physics material. Your statements about QM suggest that you've learned it only from sort of pop-science books, not from academic textbooks, or (God forbid) from this Guglinski. Whatever the reason, you have the basics badly wrong.

Please try to learn some quantum mechanics from someone other than Guglinski.

Reality Check · 14th June 2011, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

Why not ?

When there is one slit, the helical trajetory interacts with one slit.

Where there are two slits, the helical trajectory interacts with two slits

Is there need to be a genius to understand so simple question ?

One does not need to be a genius to realize that photons, electrons and C60 molecules do not move in some crank's delusion of a "helical trajectory": Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank.

But if you are that gulible then we are back to: How does a single QRT C60 molecule passing through a single slit know that there is another slit and that it is open or closed?

Guglinsk's "helical trajectory" has a "spiral radius" of R=0.26F. That is fermimeters. The slits are many orders of magnitude wider than this "helical trajectory".
Of course a truly deluded crank will just say that the spiral radius is as wide as they need it to be to explain this result and is magically 0.26F when they want it to be

!

Reality Check · 14th June 2011, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by pedrone

I rely more on experiments that are confirming the Quantum Ring Theory than in any peer-reviewed literature.

Experiments prove that a theory is correct.

What does a peer-reviewed literature prove ? It proves NOTHING

It is nice that you acknowledge that Quantum Ring Theory is bunk because it has been shown to be incorrect by experiments ( Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank.)

The experimental value of the deutron electric quadrapole moment confirms that QFT is bunk (Guglinski gets the deuteron electric quadrapole moment wrong 3 times! ).

But your ignorance of science is showing: The act of publishing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal proves SOMETHING, e.g. that there are no obvious defects in the paper and that

the author can produce a good enough argument to convince experts in his field that he is correct.
the author is not some lone crank.
the author is confident enough in his theory to expose it to proper scrutiny.

By not publishing his theory in a peer-reviewed journal, Guglinski is showing that he is one or more of the following:

a crank.
afraid to expose his theory to his peers
unable to convince his peers that his theory is correct.

13th June 2011, 06:43 PM	#41
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	What's Quantum Ring Theory...
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

13th June 2011, 06:46 PM	#42
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,776	Originally Posted by pedrone Of course. Because you know Steinberg' experiment BETTER than the own Steinberg HA HA HA Of course it is stupid to think that I know Steinberg' experiment BETTER than Steinberg. Just like it is stupid to rely in a news article. It is Steinberg and his co-authors who state that they use a double-slit interferometer and do not state that they closed a slit. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Quote: A consequence of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle is that one may not discuss the path or “trajectory” that a quantum particle takes, because any measurement of position irrevocably disturbs the momentum, and vice versa. Using weak measurements, however, it is possible to operationally define a set of trajectories for an ensemble of quantum particles. We sent single photons emitted by a quantum dot through a double-slit interferometer and reconstructed these trajectories by performing a weak measurement of the photon momentum, postselected according to the result of a strong measurement of photon position in a series of planes. The results provide an observationally grounded description of the propagation of subensembles of quantum particles in a two-slit interferometer. (my emphasis added)
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

13th June 2011, 06:53 PM	#43
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,776	Originally Posted by INRM What's Quantum Ring Theory... It is an crank theory published (as far as I know) just in a book, not in any peer-reviewed literature. All sorts of the usual non-science we see from physics cranks, e.g. photons magically traveling in "helical trajectories", neutrons are protons + electrons, pretty pictures = science, etc. If you are really interested then a few pages have been analysed in why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct thread, e.g. Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

13th June 2011, 07:15 PM	#44
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,776	pedrone, Another reason that all of the single particle double-slit experiments invalidate QRT: QRT states that the photon only "knows" about the single silt that it passes through and magically decides to interact with its imaginary "helical trajectory" to produce an interference pattern. You have to wonder how a QFT photon knows that it is alone and there are no other photons going through a slit that it does not know about ! But there is probably an an imaginary "electromagnetic" thingy in the crank's book to explain this. QM states that the photon basically passes through both slits and interferes with itself. Simple prediction then QRT predicts that the distance between the slits has no effect on the pattern. QM predicts that the distance between the slits has shifts the positions of the interference fringes. Experimental result: The position of the interference fringes depends on the distance between the slits exactly as predicted by QM. With actual numbers rather than your waffling on about QFT! Conclusion: QFT is bunk! P.S. If you want to see the pattern then the second figure in Watching Photons Interfere: "Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer" shows it at various distances from the slits. Look for Quote: Yeah, there's a lot going on in this one. The four parts of this figure plot two different things for each of four different distances behind the slits, with the distance increasing as you go down. Wow - someone else who thinks that there are 2 slits!
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

13th June 2011, 07:20 PM	#45
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,776	The secret lives of photons revealed (throgh two slits) The secret lives of photons revealed Quote: In the double slit experiment, a beam of light is shone onto a screen through two slits, which results in an interference pattern on the screen. The paradox was that one could not tell which slit single photons had passed through, as measuring this would directly distort the interference pattern on the screen. “In most science, it is possible to look at what a system is doing presently and so, determine its past or future. But in quantum mechanics, it is considered inconceivable to consider the past at all.” says physicist Aephraim Steinberg of the Centre for Quantum Information and Quantum Control at the University of Toronto, Canada who has led this new research. (my emphasis)
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

13th June 2011, 07:23 PM	#46
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Originally Posted by pedrone And the new experiment not only corroborates Quantum Ring Theory. The new experiment also denies Quantum Mechanics. Oh, that makes it simple! It's wrong. Thanks for saving me the time I would have spent following that link.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th June 2011, 10:38 PM	#47
Dorman Scholar Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 84	Originally Posted by pedrone Dorman, tell us what you know about the photon model of Quantum Ring Theory, and show us what is just wrong in what the zpenergy link says. It's easy to say: "that is wrong" Even a child can say it. But a serious person (which probably is not a child) must prove what he says. So, prove that you are a serious person: prove what you claim The link says the following about QM: "According to Quantum Mechanics, a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as a particle at the same time." This is a wrong statement (it is normally used in a loose sense, but while discussing a serious matter, one should be more precise.) In many situations, the behavior of a quantum particle (say, a photon) can be approximated as a wave or a particle. But that does not mean that QM forbids it from showing both characteristics at the same time. Indeed, QM predicts that a photon should show both behaviors at the same time, given the right conditions. This is what the experiment was designed to check, and this is what is showed. (They of course did not show a single photon showing both behaviors, but an ensemble of photons showing both behaviors on the average.) The statements of the website about QM ("... and the results show that Quantum Mechanics is wrong") are therefore wrong. I do not know anything about Quantum Ring Theory. It may well also be consistent with the experiment. But I see no reason to be interested in it, since QM seems to do the job for me. I may look at QRT when some experiment shows QM to be incorrect. By that time, it presumably will also have reproduced many of the successes of QM. Till then, there are many other interesting things to do research in, which is what a serious person should do. -Dorman
Dorman Scholar Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 84	Last edited by Dorman; 13th June 2011 at 11:08 PM. Reason: Some explanation added.

14th June 2011, 12:10 AM	#48
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by pedrone Elusive truths 1. A quantum particle can behave like a particle or a wave, but not both simultaneously. 2. You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it. Point 2 does not make any sense in terms of basic English. Point 1 is complete nonsense.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

14th June 2011, 01:25 AM	#49
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,417	Originally Posted by pedrone And the new experiment not only corroborates Quantum Ring Theory. The new experiment also denies Quantum Mechanics. See in the link: http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=3295 I have no idea what "quantum ring theory" is, but the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM. Anyone claiming otherwise must demonstrate mathematically that the results are inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation. We're waiting.

14th June 2011, 10:05 AM	#50
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Reality Check pedrone, I can read. I can read the abstract of the Steinberg experiment. I do not have to rely on a news article like you. I also know more physics than the reporter. HA HA HA HA The reporter got those "elusive truths" correct but then appled them wrongly in : Dont say foolishes, Reality Check. Do you think the reporter did his own intepretation of the experiment ?????? Do you really believe what you said ?????? Gee... you kill me with laughter The reporter did not interpret the Steinberg experiment. The reporter only wrote just what Steinberg said in the interview. Everything written by the reporter transmits the Steinberg's interpretation on his experiment. As you have a different interpretation of the experiment, and you are sure that Steinberg interpretation is wrong, then go and tell him to change his wrong intepretation.
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 10:32 AM	#51
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by sol invictus I have no idea what "quantum ring theory" is, but the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM. Anyone claiming otherwise must demonstrate mathematically that the results are inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation. We're waiting. Then let's analyse what you claim, dear sol invictus. 1) A quantum particle can behave like a particle or a wave, but not both simultaneously. You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it. These two propositions are recognized as "truths" of quantum mechanics for more than a century. 2) Now, in a single experiment, a team of physicists brought down the two, showing that quantum mechanics is even more cumbersome and less intuitive than it looked 3) However, sol invictus claims that the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM. 4) Conclusion: the own Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong, because: 1- For more than a century the physicists recognized as "truths" the two propositions of quantum mechanics. 2- Steinberg's experiment shows that the two propositions are wrong, and so Quantum Mechanics is wrong 3- But the new Steinberg experiment is agree to Quantum Mechanics 4- Therefore, as Steinberg's experiment is according to Quantum Mechanics, but his experiment also shows that those "truths" of Quantum Mechanics are wrong, this means that Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong. Sol Invictus, you are a genius. And therefore the physicists are idiots
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 12:58 PM	#52
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Reality Check pedrone, Another reason that all of the single particle double-slit experiments invalidate QRT: QRT states that the photon only "knows" about the single silt that it passes through and magically decides to interact with its imaginary "helical trajectory" to produce an interference pattern. You have to wonder how a QFT photon knows that it is alone and there are no other photons going through a slit that it does not know about ! But there is probably an an imaginary "electromagnetic" thingy in the crank's book to explain this. QM states that the photon basically passes through both slits and interferes with itself. Simple prediction then QRT predicts that the distance between the slits has no effect on the pattern. QM predicts that the distance between the slits has shifts the positions of the interference fringes. Experimental result: The position of the interference fringes depends on the distance between the slits exactly as predicted by QM. With actual numbers rather than your waffling on about QFT! Conclusion: QFT is bunk! P.S. If you want to see the pattern then the second figure in Watching Photons Interfere: "Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer" shows it at various distances from the slits. Look for Wow - someone else who thinks that there are 2 slits! Reality Check, it seems you know very well the photon model of Quantum Ring Theory. So, as you know, there are repulsive gravitons within the structure of the photon proposed in QRT, as shown in the figure: In the link bellow you may understand why there is need to consider such repulsive gravity within the photon model: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physic...p=462#more-462 So, Reallity Check, the question is: in your questioning against QRT, how do you consider the influence of the repulsive gravity ?
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 12:59 PM	#53
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,776	The interference pattern from two slits from the actual paper Originally Posted by pedrone Dont say foolishes, Reality Check. ...snipped insanely formated rant... Don't be so ignorant pedrone: The secret lives of photons revealed (through two slits) The fact is that all double-slit experiments only see an interfernece pattern when both slits are open. That fact is that this experiment has an interference pattern: Originally Posted by Reality Check P.S. If you want to see the pattern then the second figure in Watching Photons Interfere: "Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer" shows it at various distances from the slits. Look for Quote: Yeah, there's a lot going on in this one. The four parts of this figure plot two different things for each of four different distances behind the slits, with the distance increasing as you go down. Wow - someone else who thinks that there are 2 slits! Any one with 2 brain cells will conclude that Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer had 2 slits open.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

14th June 2011, 01:07 PM	#54
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,776	Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank Originally Posted by pedrone Reality Check, it seems you know very well the photon model of Quantum Ring Theory. in your questioning against QRT, how do you consider the influence of the repulsive gravity ? Ohhh - idoitic pretty pictures from a crank book! Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank. You totally ignored the point of the post. The QRT prediction for the single particle double slit experiment (as suggested by the author of the crank website you linked to) is that the interference pattern is generated by the photon in a slit. It has noting to do with the presence of another slit. The experimental results are that the photon acts as as if it has passed through both slits. The interference pattern is affected by the distance between the slits. Thus QRT is bunk!
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

14th June 2011, 02:47 PM	#55
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by pedrone A quantum particle can behave like a particle or a wave, but not both simultaneously. You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it. These two propositions are recognized as "truths" of quantum mechanics for more than a century. I'll repeat. This nonsense. How could the second make sense when it is not even a meaningful sentence. As for the first, please find me evidence that this has been held as a truth of QM for more a century. OR just to do what Sol said.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

14th June 2011, 02:50 PM	#56
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Reality Check You totally ignored the point of the post. The QRT prediction for the single particle double slit experiment (as suggested by the author of the crank website you linked to) is that the interference pattern is generated by the photon in a slit. It has noting to do with the presence of another slit. Why not ? When there is one slit, the helical trajetory interacts with one slit. Where there are two slits, the helical trajectory interacts with two slits Is there need to be a genius to understand so simple question ?
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 02:50 PM	#57
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,700	Pedrone, particles are waves all the time, there is no duality is some Copenhagen sense of superposition. Where is your source for a wave never being a particle?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

14th June 2011, 03:04 PM	#58
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,417	I repeat: Originally Posted by sol invictus ...the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM. Anyone claiming otherwise must demonstrate mathematically that the results are inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation. We're waiting. We're still waiting.

14th June 2011, 03:13 PM	#59
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Dancing David Pedrone, partciles are waves all the time, there is no duality is some Copenhagen sense of superposition. Who told you ? God ? Originally Posted by Dancing David Where is your source for a wave never being a particle ? 1- Waves cannot be submitted to centripetal acceleration. If the electron should be a wave, it would be impossible to get the value of a magnetic field crossed by the electron from the calculus of the centripetal acceleration on it (taking in consideration the the electron speed, its mass, and the radius of its trajectory). 2- Waves have no mass Do you get a wave on a scale and measure the weight of this wave? 3- Waves cannot form a well defined shadow (such as when the sun projects a well defined shadow of a person on the ground). Newton already knew that. If Newton knew Quantum Mechanics, he would die from laughing at it Ah... and God told me that particles are always particles. They are never waves. The duality is caused by the helical trajectory of particles. If you have any doubt, ask it to God. He will tell you I'm right.
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 03:15 PM	#60
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by sol invictus I repeat: We're still waiting. Why? You already showed us that the own Quantum Mechanics proved that Quantum Mechanics is wrong...
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 03:18 PM	#61
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by pedrone 2- Waves have no mass Huh? The de Broglie wavelength, for a non-relativistic particle, is inversely proportional to its mass!
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

14th June 2011, 03:21 PM	#62
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by pedrone Why? Because that would be how to show that QM is wrong. Not by making some nonsense statements up about what QM says and then claiming these "truths" have been falsified. Quote: You already showed us that the own Quantum Mechanics proved that Quantum Mechanics is wrong... No he didn't.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

14th June 2011, 03:22 PM	#63
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Reality Check Originally Posted by INRM What's Quantum Ring Theory... It is an crank theory published (as far as I know) just in a book, not in any peer-reviewed literature. I rely more on experiments that are confirming the Quantum Ring Theory than in any peer-reviewed literature. Experiments prove that a theory is correct. What does a peer-reviewed literature prove ? It proves NOTHING
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 03:24 PM	#64
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Because that would be how to show that QM is wrong. Not by making some nonsense statements up about what QM says and then claiming these "truths" have been falsified. Go tell it to Steinberg, author of the experience
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 03:26 PM	#65
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Tubbythin No he didn't. Yes, he did
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 03:35 PM	#66
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,578	Originally Posted by pedrone Yes, he did You appear to have forgotten to post the mathematical part of the evidence.

14th June 2011, 03:43 PM	#67
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Huh? The de Broglie wavelength, for a non-relativistic particle, is inversely proportional to its mass! de Broglie wavelength is caused by the helical trajectory. This is shown in Quantum Ring Theory. Besides, de Broglie concept of duality introduces an insurmountable in Quantum Mechanics, as Guglinski shows in his book Quantum Ring Theory. Guglinski named it The de Broglie Paradox: http://peswiki.com/index.php/New_de_Broglie's_Paradox
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 03:53 PM	#68
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Mashuna You appear to have forgotten to post the mathematical part of the evidence. Ok, let me prove it mathematically: 1- C is not equal to D 2-According to Quantum Mechanics, A+B = C 3 Steinberg experiment showed that A+B = D 4- Sol Invictus claimed that A+B= D is according to Quantum Mechanics. 5- Therefore, according to Sol Invictus, C= D CONCLUSIONS: a) Either the own Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong b) or Sol Invictus is genius
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 03:57 PM	#69
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by pedrone Ok, let me prove it mathematically: 1- C is not equal to D 2-According to Quantum Mechanics, A+B = C 3 Steinberg experiment showed that A+B = D 4- Sol Invictus claimed that A+B= D is according to Quantum Mechanics. 5- Therefore, according to Sol Invictus, C= D CONCLUSIONS: a) Either the own Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong b) or Sol Invictus is genius Or, far more likely, you've completely misunderstood everything.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

14th June 2011, 04:08 PM	#70
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,547	Originally Posted by pedrone Ok, let me prove it mathematically: 1- C is not equal to D Ermm.... Really, I want to join in but I just can't. I want my soul back, and I didn't even believe I had one.
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,547	__________________ When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz

14th June 2011, 04:08 PM	#71
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by pedrone de Broglie wavelength is caused by the helical trajectory. This is shown in Quantum Ring Theory. You just claimed waves can't have mass. But the de Broglie is related to the mass. So either your statement about waves and mass is wrong or the de Broglie wavelength equation is wrong. In the former case we don't need to take things further, in the latter case the fact that QRT can (allegedly) explain the de Broglie wavelength is utterly irrelevant since it is wrong. Quote: Besides, de Broglie concept of duality introduces an insurmountable in Quantum Mechanics, as Guglinski shows in his book Quantum Ring Theory. Guglinski named it The de Broglie Paradox: http://peswiki.com/index.php/New_de_Broglie's_Paradox I haven't even the slightest idea what he is trying to claim on that page. And why on Earth does he keep referring to a Michelson Morley experiment with protons. It is just garbage.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

14th June 2011, 04:21 PM	#72
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,700	Originally Posted by pedrone Who told you ? God ? 1- Waves cannot be submitted to centripetal acceleration. If the electron should be a wave, it would be impossible to get the value of a magnetic field crossed by the electron from the calculus of the centripetal acceleration on it (taking in consideration the the electron speed, its mass, and the radius of its trajectory). 2- Waves have no mass Do you get a wave on a scale and measure the weight of this wave? 3- Waves cannot form a well defined shadow (such as when the sun projects a well defined shadow of a person on the ground). Newton already knew that. If Newton knew Quantum Mechanics, he would die from laughing at it Ah... and God told me that particles are always particles. They are never waves. The duality is caused by the helical trajectory of particles. If you have any doubt, ask it to God. He will tell you I'm right. When you become coherent then you can particpiate in the discussion, but until then, I guess not.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

14th June 2011, 04:38 PM	#73
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Tubbythin You just claimed waves can't have mass. But the de Broglie is related to the mass. So either your statement about waves and mass is wrong or the de Broglie wavelength equation is wrong. In the former case we don't need to take things further, in the latter case the fact that QRT can (allegedly) explain the de Broglie wavelength is utterly irrelevant since it is wrong. According to de Broglie concept of duality, the velocity of the Earth would have to influence the result of th Davison-Germer experiment Originally Posted by Tubbythin I haven't even the slightest idea what he is trying to claim on that page. And why on Earth does he keep referring to a Michelson Morley experiment with protons. It is just garbage. It's a new version of the Michelson-Morley experiment proposed by Guglijnski, by changing the following: - you replace the light by a flux of proton - you replace the Michelson interferometer by a cristal Actually Michelson-Morley experiment for protons is the Davison-Germer experiment made with protons. Michelson-Morley experiment for electrons have been already made worlwide: it is the Davison-Germer experiment. As each laboratory in the world (where the Davison-Germer experiment was made) has a different direction of the electron gun, then according to de Broglie theory each laboratory would have to get a different value of the electron wavelenght
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 04:40 PM	#74
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508	Originally Posted by Dancing David When you become coherent then you can particpiate in the discussion, but until then, I guess not. but at least, after your discussion with God, please tell us what he said to you
pedrone Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 508

14th June 2011, 04:40 PM	#75
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Originally Posted by pedrone You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it. What are you measuring? Its pants size? No, what quantum mechanics actually says is that it is possible to know the velocity of a particle OR the position of that particle, but not both. This was originally thought to be a problem of measurement, but it turned out to be a fundamental physical truth.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.