It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 108
74
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkorange
Thank you. My very question was to clear wave like particle answer. You did not get my point.
So you're saying you've heard that answer before and that's not the answer you want?

I posted two videos in the OP. The first one by Sean Carroll explains how we don't understand the true interpretation of quantum mechanics. The second video by Russ Blake attempts to explain all observations without any wave-particle duality and without any quantum mechanics at all. So if that's the kind of answer you want, watch Russ Blake's video, but it's almost certainly wrong, as would be any answer that denies the wave-particle duality of the behavior of subatomic particles. If the answer you're looking for is one which explains subatomic particles without wave-particle duality, maybe you're asking the wrong question, or maybe I still don't understand your question.

The right kind of question is: "How can we better understand Nature?". The wrong kind of question is "How do photons work in terms of things I'm familiar with in the everyday world?" The former is much more likely to lead to the path of truth, than the latter which appears to lead only to at best gross distortions of how nature behaves.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
Can you conceive of any hypothetical example of how it would be possible or make sense in any reality that could ever be possible, for energy to not be quantized?
Of course, the intuitive expectation is that energy is not quantized. When you pedal a bicycle, do you expect it to jump suddenly from a speed of 1 kph to 3 kph, without ever going any speeds in-between, such as 2 kph? Of course not. Energy does not appear to be quantized to us on the scale of a bicycle.

It's only when we look at small enough parts that we see things that no longer look familiar to us. An analogy is your monitor. Look at a picture on your monitor, and you may see a good image representing what was photographed. But, get out a powerful magnifying glass and look closely at your monitor, and what you often see are tiny little colored pixels with spaces in between them. The quantum world when viewed up close looks even more different from the classical world than your monitor looks up close compared to viewing the monitor from a distance.
edit on 9-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on May, 9 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Of course, the intuitive expectation is that energy is not quantized. When you pedal a bicycle, do you expect it to jump suddenly from a speed of 1 kph to 3 kph, without ever going any speeds in-between, such as 2 kph? Of course not. Energy does not appear to be quantized to us on the scale of a bicycle.


But you are assuming 'its not quantized' because 'humans do not compute mental data in the rawest forms of quantitative truth and detail', that consciousness is composed of a greater than sum of the parts (I am guessing because of the nature of motion and light, but ultimately because of the nature of everything).

You are only saying that the natural apparatus of human awareness, is not sensually explicitly and rigorously privy to the truest discrete value of all discrete objects, but captures many objects in a sort of blur, which it captures as one singular object (things like the forces hold the many discrete objects into singular ones) and thus this must be considered a symbol in the mind, for example when you look at a tree and see a tree, there is not a real tree in your mind, a tree in reality is an exact real object composed of relatively closer to closed systems, all the way down to what could be considered the most truest and therefore most discrete level.

So the only reason one would not consider the bike changing speeds discretely, is because one who considers themselves riding a bike, thinks about things like wind and colors and shapes and lanes and cars and thoughts and plans, instead of quantum particles, and things like the subtle emotional sporadic measurement of a dream like imagination of wind and color and signs and cars and noises and memories and pedaling a, then even ultimately discretely created, sequence of consciousness is not explicit enough in its raw data registering of the rawest truest data; is there information lost in translation? Is the information created by the movement of material up against the imprints of realities material in the medium of light?


Regardless of what we see and experience, there is always and must always be, objectively, exact discrete quantities; it is summarized perfectly by; Everything is exactly as it is at all time. All things occur from the perfect reasons they occur; ultimately reality is pure truth; all that occurs occurs and occurs because it was possible to occur and either therefore determined or chosen to occur;



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It means that the energy is quantized.


Can you conceive of any hypothetical example of how it would be possible or make sense in any reality that could ever be possible, for energy to not be quantized?

Well yes before planck that's how the universe was assumed to be. So in a large part classical physics its not quantized. Energy could work quite fine if it was continuous instead of broken up into packets.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I think our "box" is not big enough to fit the whole story inside it with "our" mathematics. how about entertaining the notion that what we see as far as what creates reality is an internal thing not bound by external observations? who was the observer when dinosaurs existed? I have been a post-materialist all my life.


a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
This is from Sean Carroll's blog about quantum entanglement. Here's the link to the video which was made at the University of Vienna(couldn't embed it): www.youtube.com... Quite mind boggling!

Blog link: www.preposterousuniverse.com...



Visualizing Entanglement In Real Time


Entanglement is one of the “spookier” aspects of quantum mechanics. In classical physics, the states of two distinct objects (their positions, velocities, spins, etc.) are specified completely separately from each other. Knowing what this tomato is doing gives you no information, in principle, about what that carrot is doing. But quantum mechanics says there is only one “state of the whole world,” which refers to absolutely everything in it. And, of course, the quantum state is specified as a superposition of possible measurement outcomes, rather than one definite possibility. So the quantum state of two vegetables might take the form “the tomato is in the refrigerator and the carrot is on the kitchen counter, or the carrot is in the refrigerator and the tomato is on the counter.” Although usually we talk about spins and polarizations of particles rather than locations of foodstuffs.

Entanglement is by no means a mystery, in the same way that the measurement problem is a mystery. It’s just a straightforward prediction of quantum mechanics, repeatedly verified by experiments. But it bugs us, because it seems “nonlocal.” In the state described above, I can look at the tomato and instantly infer what the carrot is doing, without ever looking at it. This bothers people, although it doesn’t lead to anything dangerous or immoral, like communication faster than light. That’s because physical information still travels slower than light. Someone wondering about the carrot doesn’t gain any information just because you measured the location of the tomato; you still have to tell them what answer you got.

Still, entanglement is pretty cool. And now Anton Zeilinger’s group in Vienna, one of the leading labs working on quantum experiments, has queried the Zeitgeist and responded in a way appropriate to our internet age: they made a YouTube video. (Since they are also old-fashioned scientists, they also wrote a paper.)



Let me try to explain this as I understand it, but I’ll confess up front this is a bit outside my comfort zone so real experts should chime in. Here we have two entangled photons, which can be polarized either H (horizontal) or V (vertical). The quantum state is of the form HV + VH, which means that we don’t know what either polarization is, but we know that the two polarizations must be opposite of each other. (If the state had been HH + VV, we still wouldn’t know either one, but we would know they were the same.) We send each photon through a merry path, observe one of them (that’s on the left), and see what happens to the other one (on the right). We’re looking at an image of where the individual photons land on a screen. You can see how the state of photon #2 is affected by what’s happening to photon #1.

Doesn’t it seem like you could use this to send information faster than light, if photon #2 is instantly affected by what we do to photon #1? I believe the trick here is that we’re not taking an image of all of the #2 photons. We’re only taking images of #2 if photon #1 was registered in a certain state. That is, we send photon #1 through a filter that only lets horizontal polarizations through. If photon #1 gets through, we turn on the camera and image photon #2. If it doesn’t, the camera never triggers, and photon #2 hits the screen harmlessly. So no superluminal chitchat, you science-fiction fans out there.

Nevertheless, pretty awesome. Quantum mechanics is sufficiently non-intuitive that we would only ever come up with it by having it forced on us by data. Even though experiments like this are completely explained by quantum mechanics as we currently know it, every little demonstration helps us appreciate it a bit more viscerally. As we strive toward a deeper understanding, that’s a crucially important part of the process.

edit on 9-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

The short answer is that humans are not wired to see the quantum world. But we're not wired to see black holes or the photons that stream from a lightbulb either. That said, the human brain is definitely wired to explore those hidden worlds.

My opinion is that it always comes down to the instrumentation - build the right instrument and you can see anything.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I think our "box" is not big enough to fit the whole story inside it with "our" mathematics. how about entertaining the notion that what we see as far as what creates reality is an internal thing not bound by external observations?
I don't know what that means. The observations appear to have built-in probabilities, but they are very predictable on a large-scale statistical basis, even if an individual observation is somewhat unpredictable because it is only probabilistic.

We don't know the whole story for sure, but our observations are consistent enough that they at least show our models are accurate models, even if they aren't a perfect representation of reality.


who was the observer when dinosaurs existed?
Besides the dinosaurs? Our great-great...(times a few million) grandparents were there, whatever kind of creatures they were.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
In theory a space "elevator" could use centripetal force to maintain a stable configuration and allow transition from earths surface to orbit via an elevator. I simply cannot understand, however, how the initial deployment of the cable would be possible considering the coriolis effect and the changing orbital periods as the cable passed through various orbital heights. Orbital mechanics is difficult on the intuition, but dropping to a lower orbit results in a shorter orbital period. So as the "cable" is dropped to earth from the initial platform wouldn't there be larger and larger tidal forces on it as its orbital period decreased? Thanks.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It means that the energy is quantized.


Can you conceive of any hypothetical example of how it would be possible or make sense in any reality that could ever be possible, for energy to not be quantized?

Well yes before planck that's how the universe was assumed to be. So in a large part classical physics its not quantized. Energy could work quite fine if it was continuous instead of broken up into packets.


Lets say there was an area of continuous energy;


How would it exist (instead of energy, we should really be saying matter here, not that I mind in the distinction)?

If there was 1 separate area of continuous energy, or can the idea of continuous energy existing only exist if the entire universe is absolute 1 area of continuous energy with no discreteness?

If not;

Then imagine in the universe an area, 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot area of continuous energy/matter;

Hypothetically, how would that exist, it would just be what our understanding of fundamental particles are, but larger?

it would have no components, but just be a perfect blob of matter?

Would there be any space in it, or every planck length would perfectly be that matter?

And if at time and space x1, we plotted the position of every planck length within the area of this object;

Through out the objects collective movement as a single object through space, x2, x3, x4, x5, etc.

Would it be possible for any of the matter that exists at any of the planck lengths within the area of the object, to move relative to one another?



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It means that the energy is quantized.


Can you conceive of any hypothetical example of how it would be possible or make sense in any reality that could ever be possible, for energy to not be quantized?

Well yes before planck that's how the universe was assumed to be. So in a large part classical physics its not quantized. Energy could work quite fine if it was continuous instead of broken up into packets.


Lets say there was an area of continuous energy;


How would it exist (instead of energy, we should really be saying matter here, not that I mind in the distinction)?

If there was 1 separate area of continuous energy, or can the idea of continuous energy existing only exist if the entire universe is absolute 1 area of continuous energy with no discreteness?

If not;

Then imagine in the universe an area, 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot area of continuous energy/matter;

Hypothetically, how would that exist, it would just be what our understanding of fundamental particles are, but larger?

it would have no components, but just be a perfect blob of matter?

Would there be any space in it, or every planck length would perfectly be that matter?

And if at time and space x1, we plotted the position of every planck length within the area of this object;

Through out the objects collective movement as a single object through space, x2, x3, x4, x5, etc.

Would it be possible for any of the matter that exists at any of the planck lengths within the area of the object, to move relative to one another?







I have an idea why don't we skip your analogies and let's just try questions. Is know they make sense I'm your head but it's not so clear to others. Now to attempt to answer continous energy would have had our universe dealing with the basic atomic structure. Meaning atoms and it's parts like electrons.Photons would be waves and we would not see them as particles. The double slit experiment would have worked just the way we expected it to. And the main principle that controls the universe would have been thermodynamics. Hope that helps.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Hardly helps, but you are trying.

Imagine the universe as the total system it is (lets pretend the universe is the totality of stuff that exists in/as reality)

When speaking about the concepts of discrete and continuous;

There are 3 possibilities;

1) The entire universe is absolutely continuous, every planck length of matter relative to every planck length of matter is 'connected in an unbreakable way', and the entire total universe is one pure part-less blob.

2) The entire universe is absolutely discrete; The totality of universe, is made of separate parts/bits which can move relative to one another.

3) The universe is a mixture of both; there are areas of the universe of discreteness, and areas of material continuity

Field theory seems confused itself, because it wants to say that fields are continuous, but that particular areas of the field are discrete, and I would argue from the highest perspective eventually everything is fated to be discrete because it is always an exact quantity, but I admit I am confused with this.


You said; large part of classical physics its not quantized;

Just because at a moment in time man could not quantize reality, did not mean it was reasonable to intuit that reality was not quantized; similar to how just because we can only do so much as far as modeling goes, does not mean the models are reality. I am only ever talking about reality, and wanting to know about reality. I dont care if you smash rocks together and without thinking declare something about the results. I am all about thinking absolutely about every thing.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: tombaccei
Bradley Edwards spent 6 months considering how to solve many issues such as the ones you mention; see "chapter 5: Deploying the Initial Cable" in his paper:

The Space Elevator

I think deployment can be achieved if we find a strong enough and light enough material for the cable, but that seems to be one of the biggest challenges.

One of my concerns is, won't it be a hazard for all kinds of satellites and orbital debris at orbits lower than Geosynchronous running into the cable? See section 10.3 of Dr. Edwards' paper:


Initially, we want to avoid all impacts on the cable from objects larger than 1 cm (this becomes less stringent as the cable grows). Based on the system proposed by Johnson Space Center the space elevator would need to avoid a piece of space debris every fourteen hours on average (see table 10.3.1). With an understanding of cable dynamics, a good computer system and the proposed anchor facility (Chapter 6: Anchor) this level of active avoidance is feasible.
That sounds easier said than done.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Is a Symphony of music which does not have a second of silence (milli, pico, is that possible?) continuous or discrete?



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



Is a Symphony of music which does not have a second of silence (milli, pico, is that possible?) continuous or discrete?

Not possible. Unless you are in a perfectly anechoic environment.
Or in a sufficient vacuum to preclude the production of sound. Which would make a symphony pointless.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ImaFungi



Is a Symphony of music which does not have a second of silence (milli, pico, is that possible?) continuous or discrete?

Not possible. Unless you are in a perfectly anechoic environment.
Or in a sufficient vacuum to preclude the production of sound. Which would make a symphony pointless.


What is not continuous about it if there is no silence, if from start to finish sound can consistently be registered?

And you may say a single note is a discrete unit, but then it is also seen that a single note is not a single particulate, but requires a wave nature, a vibration, in short, multiple relative mass movement.

From the moment of silence before the start, up until the pico second before the first note is played, and then the exact split second the first note is played...

Well I guess you would say notes are by nature discrete, because they are a pitch, an exact wave range;

But is a wave discrete?

Is a sound wave discrete or continuous?

I dont get what continuous means; Does any one have an example of an object that can be continuous? and not discrete



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

What is not continuous about it if there is no silence, if from start to finish sound can consistently be registered?
What does that have to do with what I said or your question?



And you may say a single note is a discrete unit, but then it is also seen that a single note is not a single particulate, but requires a wave nature, a vibration, in short, multiple relative mass movement.
What does that have to do with what I said or your question?




Well I guess you would say notes are by nature discrete, because they are a pitch, an exact wave range;
What does that have to do with what I said or your question? Apparently you have little understanding of musical theory or notation.



s a sound wave discrete or continuous?
Apparently you have little understanding of the definition of sound.


I dont get what continuous means
I agree.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: darkorange
Thank you. My very question was to clear wave like particle answer. You did not get my point.
So you're saying you've heard that answer before and that's not the answer you want?

I posted two videos in the OP. The first one by Sean Carroll explains how we don't understand the true interpretation of quantum mechanics. The second video by Russ Blake attempts to explain all observations without any wave-particle duality and without any quantum mechanics at all. So if that's the kind of answer you want, watch Russ Blake's video, but it's almost certainly wrong, as would be any answer that denies the wave-particle duality of the behavior of subatomic particles. If the answer you're looking for is one which explains subatomic particles without wave-particle duality, maybe you're asking the wrong question, or maybe I still don't understand your question.

The right kind of question is: "How can we better understand Nature?". The wrong kind of question is "How do photons work in terms of things I'm familiar with in the everyday world?" The former is much more likely to lead to the path of truth, than the latter which appears to lead only to at best gross distortions of how nature behaves.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
Can you conceive of any hypothetical example of how it would be possible or make sense in any reality that could ever be possible, for energy to not be quantized?
Of course, the intuitive expectation is that energy is not quantized. When you pedal a bicycle, do you expect it to jump suddenly from a speed of 1 kph to 3 kph, without ever going any speeds in-between, such as 2 kph? Of course not. Energy does not appear to be quantized to us on the scale of a bicycle.

It's only when we look at small enough parts that we see things that no longer look familiar to us. An analogy is your monitor. Look at a picture on your monitor, and you may see a good image representing what was photographed. But, get out a powerful magnifying glass and look closely at your monitor, and what you often see are tiny little colored pixels with spaces in between them. The quantum world when viewed up close looks even more different from the classical world than your monitor looks up close compared to viewing the monitor from a distance.


Thanks for your attempt to answer my question. In essence you gave me a short lecture on what would be a 'right' question to ask. I truly appreciate that although I feel you could have simply said that you don't know the answer. It would have been sufficient enough. Instead I had an impression you got angry with me.

Cheers)

DO.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkorange
I feel you could have simply said that you don't know the answer. It would have been sufficient enough.
That wouldn't be an honest answer though. I do think we have good evidence of wave-particle duality of photons, so for you to say you wanted an answer explaining them without wave-particle duality doesn't infer to me that I don't know the answer, it infers to me that you wanted an answer which was either not correct, or at best incomplete.


Instead I had an impression you got angry with me.
Of course not. I got angry only two times in this thread, once when some thread hijackers tried to turn it into a 9/11 thread even after I asked them to stop and post their 9/11 comments in the 9/11 forum, and again when someone said the answers I posted from peer reviewed sources were wrong, and they knew the right answers but they weren't mainstream and they had zero sources to back them up. Even that last bit didn't make me mad until I asked them to stop posting their sourceless claims in this forum which is supposed to be for claims backed by sources, and they refused to go to the appropriate forum with those claims (skunk works).



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Can you give me an example of a hypothetical object in a hypothetical reality (or this one) that would be continuous?

(No I will not accept; 'the Ouhgiedoogie object in the Appipappie reality' though that would have been funny if I let you get away with it)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That wouldn't be an honest answer though. I do think we have good evidence of wave-particle duality of photons




When photons are in their wave mode, they are still particles then right, just particles that over time and space move up and down like a wave?



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join