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: 31
74
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Arbitrageur:

You seem to be very knowledgeable of physics. Are you a physicist?

I'm an engineer with a keen interest in many subjects, including physics. In college (some 26+ years ago) I took a graduate level physics class and we talked about Relativity and QM and I have to be honest, there are things about QM that I just couldn't accept then or now. Given the 80 years of QM and its continued issues that you and others point out, clearly we are missing something. It reminds me of Ptolemy's model of the “Universe” and this quote (though I cannot remember who's quote it is)


The fact that you can reliably predict a result does not mean that you understand the fundamental principles behind it.

Ptolemy was able to reliably predict the future positions of the planets, which at the time was revolutionary because it was thought that the planets were gods with minds of their own and thus could not be predicted, but he clearly did not understand the underlying principles of gravity and motion or that the Earth went around the Sun.

For a long time I could not really put my finger on what exactly it was about QM that didn't sit right with me. Then, several years ago I saw this French scientist, Yevs Couder (pronounced Eve Coo-day), and his Silicon oil droplets floating above a pool of vibrating Silicon oil. I was mesmerized! There it was, a single “Particle” moving through a double slit and interfering with itself! The “Particle” creating the “Wave” and the “Wave” guiding the “Particle”.

As you can see in this video, it is possible that a critical error in QM is the question:
“Particle or Wave” when it may actually be “Particle and Wave”. If this is true it would mean that Superposition, a most fundamental tenet of QM, is wrong! How hard would this be for the physics community to accept? What do you think? Could Superposition be wrong?






posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Ok lets talk about a Tesla coil and how it works. Tesla coil consists of two inductive-capacitive oscillators, loosely coupled to one another.We call this LC oscillators they have two main components an inductor and a capacitor. An inductor converts an electrical current into a magnetic field , measured in Teslas. Now as i mentioned there is a stop gap this stores energy until the ions build up to create a spark this causes an oscillation or a frequency if you will. When a charged capacitor is connected to an inductor an electric current will flow from the capacitor through the inductor creating a magnetic field. When the electric field in the capacitor is exhausted the current stops and the magnetic field collapses. As the magnetic field collapses, it induces a current to flow in the inductor in the opposite direction to the original current. This new current charges the capacitor, creating a new electric field, equal but opposite to the original field.As long as the inductor and capacitor are connected the energy in the system will oscillate between the magnetic field and the electric field as the current constantly reverses. This is what i meant by saying its sort of an oscillating electro magnet.

Now about the second video posted again we are generating a massive magnetic field but a magnetic fields flow lines can be changed by simply adding a ground into that field. So even in the cup you can change the magnetic field by using a ground causing it to enter the cup and flow around the ground. The magnetic field is exciting the phospher with electrons causing the glow to occur as the electron jumps back to its lower state emitting a photon of visible light.It has to do with the zeeman effect you can read about it here.
www.physics.rutgers.edu...

By the way check this out its very neat its a set up under high powered lines.

www.doobybrain.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Galileo400
There it was, a single “Particle” moving through a double slit and interfering with itself! The “Particle” creating the “Wave” and the “Wave” guiding the “Particle”...

If this is true it would mean that Superposition, a most fundamental tenet of QM, is wrong! How hard would this be for the physics community to accept? What do you think? Could Superposition be wrong?
I don't know if you read the thread and I realize it's kind of long....but we covered this back on page 19:


originally posted by: mbkennel
In the Bohm-deBroglie interpretation of QM there is a joint particle and wave simultaneously propagating.
If you watch the video in the OP, this is one of the options in the survey, but it wasn't too popular. Apparently there are some historical reasons for this quoted below.

The discussion went on for the rest of page 19 with a few more posts and then on page 21 I posted this diagram of photons as illustrated as both waves and particles:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the only thing not covered is that video you posted and that is somewhat like deBroglie-Bohm in that the particle only goes though one slit, and there's a wave associated with the particle that goes through the other slit.


The de Broglie–Bohm theory is an example of a hidden variables theory. Bohm originally hoped that hidden variables could provide a local, causal, objective description that would resolve or eliminate many of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as Schrödinger's cat, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wavefunction. However, Bell's theorem complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. The Bohmian interpretation is causal but not local.

Bohm's paper was largely ignored or panned by other physicists. Albert Einstein, who had suggested that Bohm search for a realist alternative to the prevailing Copenhagen approach, did not consider Bohm's interpretation to be a satisfactory answer to the quantum nonlocality question, calling it "too cheap",[62] while Werner Heisenberg considered it a "superfluous 'ideological superstructure' ".[63] Wolfgang Pauli, who had been unconvinced by de Broglie in 1927, conceded to Bohm as follows:

I just received your long letter of 20th November, and I also have studied more thoroughly the details of your paper. I do not see any longer the possibility of any logical contradiction as long as your results agree completely with those of the usual wave mechanics and as long as no means is given to measure the values of your hidden parameters both in the measuring apparatus and in the observe [sic] system. As far as the whole matter stands now, your ‘extra wave-mechanical predictions’ are still a check, which cannot be cashed.[64]

He subsequently described Bohm's theory as "artificial metaphysics".[65]

According to physicist Max Dresden, when Bohm's theory was presented at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, many of the objections were ad hominem, focusing on Bohm's sympathy with communists as exemplified by his refusal to give testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee.
It's an interesting idea, which I wouldn't rule out, but it does seem a little more complicated. This doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but you know Occam's razor, right? (see section 4.7 of the link).

I don't consider Occam's razor to be sufficient reason to reject the idea, nor do I see strong reasons in physics experiments to reject it, so, as I said in that discussion, I see it as one possibility, but it's apparently not a popular idea. What's needed is some experimental way to distinguish the different interpretations to figure out which one is right. There's probably a Nobel prize awaiting whoever figures out how to do that.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Implying you don't? The only people who know what's in the current secret projects can't talk about any specifics, but it stands to reason that many of the secret patents are related to nuclear device technology.




Like I said, we already have seen declassified projects from decades ago. They do represent some advanced engineering technology, but I can't think of any that represent advanced physics, can you?


You see... this is the thing.

I have read some very recent threads lately on ATS that made me go hmmmmm. threads regarding UFO's in the form of big black triangles.
Now normally i wouldnt even consider, let alone use, this as an example.... however i cannot ignore the fact that many witnesses around the globe have reported seeing the same thing. and the claims made in some of these threads by verified members of ATS has all but confirmed the existence of these things.

So yes, advanced physics, i can see it being real. Unless countless people around the world are hallucinating the exact same image and the aviation forum is full of retards (which is a retarded concept in itself).





posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Yes advanced and completely new physics does exist
a reply to: combatmaster



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster

Well of course people never lie or embellish ufo stories do they



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aural
Im frustrated I had a reply then my internet messed up and ate it up .


I like to write my replies in a word file and then copy/paste when I'm done. Just a suggestion.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
You see... this is the thing.

I have read some very recent threads lately on ATS that made me go hmmmmm. threads regarding UFO's in the form of big black triangles.
According to one aviation expert, Bill Scott, the basic technology involved in such craft may precede airplanes, that is, assuming they aren't alien. I posted his explanation in the second video here which played for me when I posted it but now it's saying it's not available in my country. But if you're curious I'm sure you can find that episode from another source if it won't play in your country either. There is a patent involved, but it's advanced engineering, and some really mundane physics. I discuss that in the same thread in another post here. See the link called "Has the world’s best-documented “UFO” phenomenon just been a close encounter of the military kind?". The military version, if it exists, which I suspect it does, is still classified, but here is a non-military version of similar technology and if you recognize it, the physics of how it's able to hover silently is pretty mundane:

www.popularmechanics.com...


However I would also add that someone on ATS saw a video of three Chinese lanterns and exclaimed: "That looks just like the triangle craft I saw and have been talking about", not realizing that three points of light always form a triangle, well, nearly always, if they are three Chinese lanterns. There is some of that, but it's clear some of the sightings are not that and could be military, and I think the UFO over Southern Illinois I mentioned in that linked thread is probably the best documented example, based on 5 different witnesses (and yes they all describe 5 different things but this isn't due to hallucination it's due to human perception, viewing angles and such). It's apparent they all saw the same thing and the UFO's behavior matches the capabilities of a military version of the craft in that photo, which could easily be made in triangle shape, hover silently, etc.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
Yes advanced and completely new physics does exist
Someone said flying pink elephants exist, and since they offered the same amount of evidence for that claim as you do for yours, I'll just put them both in the same, circular file until I see some evidence of either one.

I have nothing against Carl Sagan's and others' speculation that alien intelligences are likely to exist, and some may have way more advanced knowledge of physics than ours, but that's entirely speculative, so I'm talking about human knowledge of physics here.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: combatmaster
You see... this is the thing.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
Yes advanced and completely new physics does exist
Someone said flying pink elephants exist, and since they offered the same amount of evidence for that claim as you do for yours, I'll just put them both in the same, circular file until I see some evidence of either one.

I have nothing against Carl Sagan's and others' speculation that alien intelligences are likely to exist, and some may have way more advanced knowledge of physics than ours, but that's entirely speculative, so I'm talking about human knowledge of physics here.
How can a blind person see visible evidence of a ufo or any advanced physics



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Galileo400

As you can see in this video, it is possible that a critical error in QM is the question: “Particle or Wave” when it may actually be “Particle and Wave”. If this is true it would mean that Superposition, a most fundamental tenet of QM, is wrong! How hard would this be for the physics community to accept? What do you think? Could Superposition be wrong?






Nice, thaks for the vid


simply said I see it this way.

EM radiation is a wave.
Any mass is a particle, like electron, proton, neutron.
moving charge is an particle creating a wave in Em field.
photon is not a reel particle but mathematical description of the energy carried by EM wave.
there are two types of waves in EM field.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Someone said flying pink elephants exist, and since they offered the same amount of evidence for that claim as you do for yours, I'll just put them both in the same, circular file until I see some evidence of either one.


Wow... talk about ignorance.

You say you want evidence, yet in your entire post you failed to ask me which thread i refer to.... this shows that you have already made your mind up.

If you cannot put 2 and 2 together then i cannot help you. nobody can!

As for pink elephants, that pic of a silver balloon and your chinese lantern escapism.... if that is your argument, you really are lacking in homework. For someone as knowledgable as you it is very scary that you use these amateur arguments to discredit what is pretty much fact. Giant black triangles exist mate!



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster

Lots of people around the world have claimed to have seen visions of the Virgin Mary. Does that mean it must be true because we "cannot ignore the fact that many witnesses around the globe have reported seeing the same thing"?



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

OMG... r u really using that as an argument?

all religious dogmatic beliefs usually are based on something e.g. you will never find a amazonian, who has never seen a white man or heard of jesus, say he has seen an image of virgin mary.

religion is always with an agenda or a lifelong effect.

UFO's are not quite in the same scope. It is really a sad argument!



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: GetHyped

OMG... r u really using that as an argument?


It's exactly the same argument you're using (i.e. appeal to popularity fallacy + no evidence).



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't know if you read the thread and I realize it's kind of long....but we covered this back on page 19:

I did not read the whole post. I watched the first two videos, very good btw, and read several pages and became bored by all the very untrained posters and their questions, no offence to them, we all have questions and asking questions is what science is all about.

I am not familiar with all the interpretations of QM but I'm glad to learn about the Bohm-deBroglie interpretation, thank you and put me down for that one. (I'm not a physicist, just an engineer who reads a lot and is very interested in science and the scientific method.) I don't care if it's not a popular opinion; Galileo's position was very unpopular and he was right.



originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So the only thing not covered [in] that video you posted and that is somewhat like deBroglie-Bohm in that the particle only goes though one slit, and there's a wave associated with the particle that goes through the other slit.

I thought that the video did show the wave going through both slits, which is how the particle interferes with itself without the need for superposition. Am I seeing that right?


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's an interesting idea, which I wouldn't rule out, but it does seem a little more complicated. This doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but you know Occam's razor, right? (see section 4.7 of the link).

I don't consider Occam's razor to be sufficient reason to reject the idea, nor do I see strong reasons in physics experiments to reject it, so, as I said in that discussion, I see it as one possibility, but it's apparently not a popular idea. What's needed is some experimental way to distinguish the different interpretations to figure out which one is right. There's probably a Nobel prize awaiting whoever figures out how to do that.

I am familiar with Occam's razor and use it in my thinking. Perhaps I don't know enough about QM (who am I kidding? I definitely don't know enough), but to me one particle and it's wave going through a double split, rather than the Universe splitting into Multi-verse after Multi-verse on and on infinitum (i.e. superposition), is the simpler idea. I'm glad to read that the Bohm-deBroglie interpretation at least explains all the data and so cannot be ruled out. At the time that Copernicus' book was published, the available data could not discern between the Ptolemaic and Copernican theories.

If you don't mind, could you explain to me why (you think) the Bohm-deBroglie interpretation is not more favored?




posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

If thousands of people around the world have seen a specific object in the sky. they all describe it exactly the same, these people have nothing in common apart from what they all seem to have witnessed. they dont know eachother, they all remember the same types of events. what they see is based on nothing that they can consciously remember i.e. not based on religious doctrine. what they see is the first time they ever see it and they cannot understand what it is.

Now i ask you.... if you believe a hairy old dudes writing in a book over witness statements over decades, then god help us all!

therefore it is fair to assume that my previous question regarding physics could be considered a valid and legitimate question depending on who one asks! that is the point i was trying to make! sorry i had to spell it out!

but no matter, i have veered way off topic and i apologize.


edit on 2014-08-12T19:55:44-05:00201408bpm3108pm4431 by combatmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Someone said flying pink elephants exist, and since they offered the same amount of evidence for that claim as you do for yours, I'll just put them both in the same, circular file until I see some evidence of either one.


Wow... talk about ignorance.

You say you want evidence, yet in your entire post you failed to ask me which thread i refer to.... this shows that you have already made your mind up.

If you cannot put 2 and 2 together then i cannot help you. nobody can!

As for pink elephants, that pic of a silver balloon and your chinese lantern escapism.... if that is your argument, you really are lacking in homework. For someone as knowledgable as you it is very scary that you use these amateur arguments to discredit what is pretty much fact. Giant black triangles exist mate!
It seems to me that, as far as the op is concerned, giant black triangles , ufos/ and or advanced physics ought not to be discussed



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
As for pink elephants, that pic of a silver balloon and your chinese lantern escapism.... if that is your argument, you really are lacking in homework. For someone as knowledgable as you it is very scary that you use these amateur arguments to discredit what is pretty much fact. Giant black triangles exist mate!
So, are you saying it's not possible to make that big silver lighter than air ship in the shape of a black triangle? As I said that's the commercial version, not the military version. If the military version exists, most of the witnesses in that thread I linked to described it as triangular in shape (though one said rectangular).

OK so there's one thread that convinced you? Which one? I've probably read half the UFO threads on this site, so I wouldn't say that is a sign I'm not looking for evidence. I'm looking, just haven't found anything which meets any kind of scientific standard for credibility.


originally posted by: GetHyped
It's exactly the same argument you're using (i.e. appeal to popularity fallacy + no evidence).
It's very similar.


originally posted by: combatmaster
UFO's are not quite in the same scope. It is really a sad argument!
It's a hair different in that some people are really seeing things in the sky they don't understand, so in most cases it's not an hallucination.

Where it's the same is when people say I saw a UFO. It was aliens, or advanced physics in a military craft, or something saying they've identified what they just said was unidentified.

But Carl Sagan thought in many cases people seeing unknown sights in the sky and attributing to aliens was very much in parallel to religious beliefs, though in your case the unsupported belief seems to be advanced physics rather than aliens, or at least I didn't see you mention aliens yet.



originally posted by: Galileo400
thought that the video did show the wave going through both slits, which is how the particle interferes with itself without the need for superposition. Am I seeing that right?
Sort of, though I'd say perhaps 97% of it went through the same slit as the particle, and the other 3% went through the other slit, which wouldn't explain QM observations, though of course the scientist admits it's not exactly like the quantum world. The point I was trying to make is that in Debroglie-Bohm, the particle actually does go through one slit and not through the other, and you still get an interference pattern as if it's interfering with itself.

I tried my best to quote the reasons why it's not accepted more, did you read the quote?
1. Bohm is a commie-lover and we don't like commie-lovers. Actually I'm not sure if he was, he refused to testify in the McCarthy hearings which were something of a "witch hunt" so even if I don't like commies, I find his refusal to testify hard to hold against him, and besides what do his political leanings have to do with his ideas in physics? We would hope nothing, but as far as I can tell there is at least a little bit of politics like this involved in the early lack of adoption of his idea. He was literally chased out of the United States after he was arrested for refusing to testify and he lost his job at Princeton.
2. Occam's razor. More complex that thought necessary. Read the link on that.
3. There may be some confusion over Bohm's 1952 paper called 'A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables" I and II' which suggests hidden variables, and of course we know that Bell's tests show there are no local hidden variables, but this is no reason to dismiss the theory because it makes the same predictions of Bell's tests as Copenhagen interpretation, because the DeBroglie-Bohm theory is non-local.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
It seems to me that, as far as the op is concerned, giant black triangles , ufos/ and or advanced physics ought not to be discussed
9/11 can be discussed on ATS in the 9/11 forum, and UFOs can be discussed in the UFO forum. This topic is already extremely broad covering all of physics.

There is Fouche describing the physics of the "TR3B" which if it was real physics might be on-topic here, at least the physics part, but because Fouche says his work is fictional, it's off-topic here, and besides it's already covered extensively in the UFO forum. Now if you've got some physics about flying craft and it's documented by scientific evidence that would be on-topic, but since we don't know what UFOs are, it's somewhat speculative to talk about how they are powered. This speculation is permitted on ATS but it's generally discouraged in the Science and Technology forum, where people ask for supporting evidence of claims, and expect to get it.

edit on 12-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Galileo400

As you can see in this video, it is possible that a critical error in QM is the question: “Particle or Wave” when it may actually be “Particle and Wave”. If this is true it would mean that Superposition, a most fundamental tenet of QM, is wrong! How hard would this be for the physics community to accept? What do you think?


The point of quantum mechanics is to show exactly how reality has both particle-like and wave-like aspects simultaneously. QM is the "and" and how it works.


Could Superposition be wrong?


In some other universe, sure.

In ours, hell no. Evidence is overwhelming, especially with the experimental development in quantum computing which specifically rely on maintaining and mainpulation of superposition.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

simply said I see it this way.

EM radiation is a wave.
Any mass is a particle, like electron, proton, neutron.
moving charge is an particle creating a wave in Em field.
photon is not a reel particle but mathematical description of the energy carried by EM wave.
there are two types of waves in EM field.


Quantum Field Theory, says something else. Reality is quantum mechanical functions of functions (the elementary fields). Functionals, not just functions. And in QM you can always 'change basis' to have a different representation but the underlying physical state hasn't changed. This is true in regular quantum mechanics too, it's rotating a matrix to new coordinates. In basic QM that's a finite dimensional matrix often, in QFT it's conceptually an infinite dimensional functional space but still the same idea.

A 'particleish' basis set for expanding wavefunctions is different from a waveish basis set, but both are allowed. A particle basis set has simple annihilation & creation operators to bump up and bump down by 1 the count. Wave basis set has operators for wave propagation. Some representations are much easier to compute and understand than others in various experimental circumstances. Radio waves at high amplitude? (I.e. very large average photon number) Definitely wave basis. Gamma rays from nuclear reactions? Particle basis.

But it's still always quantum mechanics of the electromagnetic field.

E&M appears, in practical experimental situations, mostly wavelike because the elementary excitations have zero rest mass and most importantly no conservation of number, and electrons & protons appear mostly particle like because they have much shorter wavelengths and there are strong conservation laws preventing easy creation & destruction.

But at their core, everything has both particle and waveish behavior, and this is experimentally confirmed.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join