|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 16, 2011 19:38:41 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 Expressed eloquently and without any insulting remarks. This is the way it should be done. Thank you principled.  |
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 17, 2011 0:14:39 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 17, 2011 0:52:23 GMT 1
Why should we takes Myers' word? You simply give STA carte blanche to say what she wants to whomever she wants and you should have better standards. Why don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 17, 2011 0:55:56 GMT 1
Why should we takes Myers' word? Because Myers is a professor of Biology. Kaku isn't. And Myers comments make sense. And i don't give STA carte blanche to say anything; she has that anyway, like all of us. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 17, 2011 8:59:55 GMT 1
Many distinguished peiople are idiots when they pronounce on subjects outside their expertise |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 17, 2011 13:54:25 GMT 1
More utter bollocks, and a badly mangkled version of what I've said several times as regards our classical intuition and our intuitive basis of 'understanding'.
Except, of course, it's total bollocks -- we have the MATHS to model non-classical concepts, and that is what we do. Hence quantum theory.
Same regurgitated quantum woo-woo consciousness nonsense, over and over. Even a dog doesn't return to his vomit as often as you do................
And now he claims to think I'm a psychopath. Really, a little over the top for someone who has just got a bit miffed because someone tells them they don't know what they are talking about, and their ideas are daft.
If it wasn't so sad, with the way that this is killing-off any chance of getting any decent discussion on these boards (I note that abacus has posted another rash of one-line 'questions' that he could answer himself with a quick google), then it would be amusingly ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 15:02:16 GMT 1
"..any chance of getting any decent discussion on these boards"
THEN START A BLOODY THREAD!
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 17, 2011 15:20:09 GMT 1
"..any chance of getting any decent discussion on these boards" THEN START A BLOODY THREAD! carnyx, sad to say that I have now given up any real hope of being educated on this MB because, with one or two exceptions, you get very little back when you do start a thread, well nothing other than sarcasm and put downs. I hate to admit it but this board has now become a farce. What some people do not seem to grasp and probably never will is that when you pose a scientific question you expect it to lead to more questions which in turn should deepen your knowledge. I might as well go to bloody Google and not bother to use this place at all, what is the bloody point?! Seems we have too many nutters here pretending to be interested in science but really pushing some other agenda of their own. |
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 16:13:54 GMT 1
NM
I've come in late to this thread, but IF we are dealing with perfectly in-phase light, then a beam reflected from a mirror will become laterally inverted, and if it meets a 'normal beam' will destructively interfere.
The apparatus has a combining mirror at the top right hand corner
So.. light destined for Detector A will be destructively interfered, by the fact that there are unequal lateral inversions through each path (e.g. 3:1)
But, light destined for Detector B has no interference, as there are equal lateral inversions in each path (e,g, 2:2)
So no wonder Penrose bets on A!
And so if either path is blocked, we see an equal number of lateral inversions in each leg, so no destructive interference!
And, no need for the photons to 'know' anything
At least part of the apparent mystery explained?
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 17, 2011 17:08:54 GMT 1
1) What the frig is lateral inversion supposed to mean?
2) you can't argue about interference unless you know the lengths of the arms
3) I think you need to go back to basic wave theorym, because you've made an awful mess of it!
4) what happens to the phase upon reflection isn't an issue, because you have to consider the phase-difference due to the lengths of the arms as well, and we don't know that. So whether there is a phase-change upon reflection or not isn't an issue -- you just tune it to get the interference you want, either no counts at A, or no counts at B, whichever you prefer.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 17, 2011 17:10:18 GMT 1
Nope, there's no one with any sense to talk to who is posting, and all who are posting on here know less that I do, so what's the point asking them a question?
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 17:28:44 GMT 1
STA
Look in the mirror, and wave your right arm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 17, 2011 17:31:59 GMT 1
NM I've come in late to this thread, but IF we are dealing with perfectly in-phase light, then a beam reflected from a mirror will become laterally inverted, and if it meets a 'normal beam' will destructively interfere. The apparatus has a combining mirror at the top right hand corner So.. light destined for Detector A will be destructively interfered, by the fact that there are unequal lateral inversions through each path (e.g. 3:1) But, light destined for Detector B has no interference, as there are equal lateral inversions in each path (e,g, 2:2) So no wonder Penrose bets on A! And so if either path is blocked, we see an equal number of lateral inversions in each leg, so no destructive interference! And, no need for the photons to 'know' anything At least part of the apparent mystery explained? Wow! That'll take some thinking about! |
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 19:19:55 GMT 1
To give you all a bit of background, consider your reflection in a mirror.
What you see is your left-righ swapped image, because the front-back direction is swapped. The 'You' in the reflection is now facing backwards, and of course your left and right hands will be transposed.
If you consider say tne cycles of an EM wave, the first cycle hits the mirror first, and is the first in the train of reflected waves, but it is going backwards and so is laterally transposed. If things are exactly right, when it hits the first incoming wave, then will cancel. The second reflected wave will cancel the second incomer, and so on. This is all done at the surface of the mirror .. and the surface of the mirror will appear to be a perfect absorber .. a 'black hole' in optical terms..
.
|
|
