|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 21:31:05 GMT 1
I apologize, I saw carnyx (I think) call you that here and I remember someone calling you that on the old BBC MB so I thought that was your name. Won't happen again.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 15, 2011 22:46:09 GMT 1
I saw carnyx (I think) call you that here and I remember someone calling you that on the old BBC MB... No, you didn't; you saw carnyx calling me that, here. No-one called STA by my name on the Beeb, AFAIK. You really must be more precise, as befits a person engaged in scientific enquiry.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 22:47:59 GMT 1
I saw carnyx (I think) call you that here and I remember someone calling you that on the old BBC MB... No, you didn't; you saw carnyx calling me that, here. No-one called STA by my name on the Beeb, AFAIK. You really must be more precise, as befits a person engaged in scientific enquiry. I'm not sure I trust you anymore. Anyhow, how do I know you're a woman?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 15, 2011 23:22:52 GMT 1
I am whatever your consciousness deems me to be, abacus.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 23:45:37 GMT 1
Well, you won't mind me calling you Jean in future?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 16, 2011 8:43:06 GMT 1
Naymissus (or STA), please can you explain the different aspects of this experiment in a bit more detail. If I understand you correctly, I think you are saying that you can set up the apparatus so that photons continually only ever register in just one of the detectors. One of the full silvered mirrors is then removed, and the photons that happen to go through the remaining path then appear equally at either detector. Well Robin, I do not fully understand all this but wiill attempt to explain to you what Penrose says about it Yes that is correct. The 'natural' direction will be the original direction of motion and Detector B on the diagram will register the arrival of a photon; if both routes are open, there is 100% probability that Detector B will detect the photon. If the route to detector B is closed, then the photon will be detected at A. Similarly idf the route to detector B is blocked then A will detect the photon. Not quite in my interpretation. Self-evidently if one of the mirrors that form route B is removed then ther is no probability of a photon arriving at detector B; similarly if one of the mirrors that constitute route A is removed then there is no possibility of a photon being detected at A
|
|
|
Post by robinpike on Feb 16, 2011 8:59:44 GMT 1
If one of the full-silvered mirrors is removed, wouldn't that still allow photons that travel along the path of the remaining full-silvered mirror to get to the last half-silvered mirror and be reflected either to detector A, or detector B?
After all, isn't that what a half-silvered mirror does - reflect or let light through?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 16, 2011 9:22:22 GMT 1
If one of the full-silvered mirrors is removed, wouldn't that still allow photons that travel along the path of the remaining full-silvered mirror to get to the last half-silvered mirror and be reflected either to detector A, or detector B? After all, isn't that what a half-silvered mirror does - reflect or let light through? Ah yes! I see your point I was being a bit dim! In fact looking up Penrose, he says that if one route is closed there is an equal probability of the photon arriving at A or B! Thanks for clarifying that
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 16, 2011 14:35:52 GMT 1
The point being, if only one arm is open, then we have a 50/50 chance for each detector registering, whichever arm it is.
When both are open, with careful tuning, we can get the interference effect going, so that one detector never registers, and the other always does.
And such interference depends on both channels being open, to give us two different things which can interfere -- although what is interfering is a photon with itself, when it has two possible routes to take.
It is this careful tuning that does the trick, because then anything else going on (like exploding bombs!), will change the chance of detection at one detector from zero to non-zero.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 16, 2011 15:06:09 GMT 1
So how can a photon be a particle AND a wave?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 16, 2011 18:24:05 GMT 1
Except particle and wave are classical concepts, which in the classical case are totally distinct categories.
But the world fundamentally isn't quantum. Hence what a quantum object IS isn't properly describable in purely classical terms, and the closest you can get is that a photon contains aspects of both particle and wave, whether we see more wavelike aspects or more particle-like aspects depends on what we are doing, but fundamentally it is NEITHER.
Hence asking how can it be both, and getting confused, just says (yet again), that you are trying to shove a quantum object into classical boxes, and then acting all surprised when it doesn't fit.......................
There is no HOW -- we have just discovered classical concepts don't capture what the universe actually does.
WHY do you keep asking the same question over and over again?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 16, 2011 18:37:57 GMT 1
Except particle and wave are classical concepts, which in the classical case are totally distinct categories. But the world fundamentally isn't quantum. Hence what a quantum object IS isn't properly describable in purely classical terms, and the closest you can get is that a photon contains aspects of both particle and wave, whether we see more wavelike aspects or more particle-like aspects depends on what we are doing, but fundamentally it is NEITHER. Hence asking how can it be both, and getting confused, just says (yet again), that you are trying to shove a quantum object into classical boxes, and then acting all surprised when it doesn't fit....................... There is no HOW -- we have just discovered classical concepts don't capture what the universe actually does. WHY do you keep asking the same question over and over again? So what you are really saying is that we do not understand anything, classical OR quantum. Why bother to study QM then if it is totally beyond us?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 16, 2011 18:47:15 GMT 1
Oh cut the crap! You are realy the most tedious, idiotic individual I have ever had the misfortune to come across.
I understand quantum theory to a usefil level, whatever Feynman quote you try to misunderstand.
Quantum objects AREN'T classical, neither particle nor wave -- that is an 'understanding', even to someone as dim as you.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Feb 16, 2011 19:21:37 GMT 1
STA
Far be it from me to answer on behalf of abacus, but let me put an analogy to you.
A tree loses its leaves in Autumn. Obviously looking at the tree in the summer we don't know which will be the first leaf to fall nor the last. We observe the leaves dying and note the order in which they fall. We carry out many measurements: Distance of leaves from trunk; Height of leaves from floor: location of leaves relative to prevailing winds etc. etc. It may be that armed with this information we may eventually be able to determine the factors that cause leaf "A" to fall before leaf "B" etc.. But then again it may remain a mystery. In which case we will be left with the fact that we know that the first leaf will fall on day "x", half the leaves will fall by day "y" and all the leaves will have fallen by day "z".
Unfortunately, for the majority of humans there will always be a nagging question as to why leaf "A" fell before"B". Surely it is this inquisitiveness that drives our thirst for knowledge and also makes us reluctant to accept that "It just does". IMO much better to say: "With our current level of knowledge we just don't know why", at least then we leave inquisitiveness intact and the door ajar for further understanding. P
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 16, 2011 19:35:32 GMT 1
Oh cut the crap! You are realy the most tedious, idiotic individual I have ever had the misfortune to come across. I understand quantum theory to a usefil level, whatever Feynman quote you try to misunderstand. Quantum objects AREN'T classical, neither particle nor wave -- that is an 'understanding', even to someone as dim as you. Actually, you are the dim one here. You still have not grasped (and probably never will) that there is no independent structured reality 'out there' because whatever is out there has nothing to do with the way human beings have evolved to deal with their environment. Therefore, the only recourse we have is to apply 'classical' concepts in order model the things we discover via our classical experiments using classical hardware and classical brains to make any sense of them. You just want to keep hiding behind the 'scientific method' and avoid these kinds of questions and refuse to confront them. BTW, please lay it on even thicker with the abuse because, with any luck, we'll get you banned. You may be a qualified physicist, I have no way of knowing that for sure, but you do seem to possess some kind of psychological aberration. Perhaps one of the reasons you do post here is because it offers you the opportunity to abuse people, which presumably would not be tolerated in the real world. Frankly, it wouldn't really be much of a loss if you never posted here again since most of the stuff you do post is incomprehensible and probably done for egotistical reasons anyway, with no real intention to educate people. I seriously wonder if you suffer from some elements of a psychopathic nature because for me you tick quite a few of the boxes. Of course, this won't get through to you because psychopaths do not experience feelings of guilt and empathy.
|
|