uncool

I'd like to point out that "squish theory" (which is the main point of the full site to which you linked) is actually something originated by one of the members here (newts) if I remember correctly; there have been several threads about it already; most of them were full of blatant mischaracterizations of modern physics (meaning anything newer than 1900) and an inability to discuss the actual "theory". In the end, they boiled down to a lack of any answer to why we should accept squish theory other than (paraphrased) "It's simpler than what we have now!" To add to the above: The main points are the following: Which is entirely accurate. The problem is that the author presumes that these are contradictory. They are not, due to the relativity of simultaneity. Jack measures that there are 50 muons flying at the same time as 1 muon still in the box. John measures 50 muons in the box at the same time as 1 muon flying. Joanne measures 25 muons flying at the same time as 25 muons in the box. The problem is that because of the relativity of simultaneity, at the same time means different things to the different observers - and so these do not contradict each other. =Uncool-

No. I'm saying the analyzer changes the coherence length in the analyzer. I disagree. What the analyzer crystal is doing is changing what we think of as a wave packet itself, by changing the wave. You have yet to show this, if by NI coherence length you mean coherence length of the wave after the NI (but before the analyzer crystal). Sounds good to me. Remember to copy the full correspondence - your email and the full response, everything. Edited to add: I'm curious. I have a modification of this experiment that I think according to your claims would distinguish between TEW and quantum theory. Let's say that the analyzer crystal is mounted on a track that can move it into and out of the beam from the neutron interferometer. We start with the crystal not in the path of the interferometer, and measure coherence length; we then move it into the path, and measure the coherence length at a time such that light would not be able to go from the crystal to the interferometer. Quantum mechanics (where the wave is changed within the analyzer crystal) would predict that we see the same outcome as before - that the coherence length would be changed. But under TEW, the "elementary wave" spreads at the speed of light, meaning that there wouldn't be enough time for the elementary wave to get to the neutron interferometer in time to affect the coherence length, right? In other words, quantum theory would get the "with analyzer crystal" coherence length, but TEW would get the "without analyzer crystal" coherence length, right? =Uncool-

It certainly does change the coherence length of the entire wave altogether. From Wikipedia: "In radio-band systems, the coherence length is approximated by L = c/n df" (delta changed to d by me). By using the prism to separate out the red photons only, we are changing the bandwidth - the df in that statement - to be much smaller, and therefore greatly increasing the coherence length. A similar effect holds for the other approximation used. In other words, it might be fair to say that the coherence length for the wave of red photons (in other words, the projection of the wave onto only the red frequencies) was determined before the prism. But that's not what was measured before the prism - what was measured was the coherence length of the entire wave. By changing aspects of the wave. Which is precisely what an analyzer crystal does. Analogous to the above: it may be fair to say that the coherence length for the wave of whatever set of neutrons is "selected" (assuming that that's what an analyzer crystal does) was determined in the NI, but that that's not the same as the coherence length of the entire wave, or of a different "selected" set, which is what happens without the crystal or with a different crystal. Because it causes the neutron wave - which no longer has a specific momentum (and hence frequency) after having passed through the interferometer - to interfere in a different way. Which means that the analyzer crystal changes the wave - and as the coherence length is an aspect of the wave itself, the analyzer crystal changes the coherence length. Changing the term doesn't change my objection. I still dispute that the analyzer crystal cannot change the coherence length. I am denying your bare assertion. Nothing more, nothing less. I am asking you about an assumption that you are specifically using to claim that your entire theory is validated. You have taken a single statement, which to my knowledge could mean anything since I have no context for it, as proof of that claim. If you are unwilling to give the context for the statement, then you must understand when other people see it as sketchy, especially when you claim it as a very indirect proof of your claim. =Uncool-

Quantum mechanics is one kind of quantum theory; basically, it's the same as the difference between classical physics and classical mechanics - mechanics deals directly with forces and displacements. It can include electrostatics and magnetostatics, but doesn't include electrodynamics, since electrodynamics can't quite be expressed directly in forces and displacements. Quantum mechanics works with the basic version of Schrodinger's equation and potentials. Quantum theory in general - usually quantum field theory - is more general; it can include, for example, quantum electrodynamics, which quantum mechanics doesn't quite include. =Uncool-

Please explain your reasoning, because your claim doesn't seem to follow from their statement. Do you have a more direct quote, or is this indirect inference the best you have to support what appears to be your main contention? Further, would you please provide more context for that statement - the paragraph it is in and the 2 surrounding it would be nice. This is phrased very ambiguously; a better way to say it is that there is a wave that describes the neutrons; coherence length is then a property of waves. Based on what? So now the analyzer crystal is no longer a "prism", but instead something which "selects" a subset of the neutrons? You have a very different idea of "clearly" than I do, especially since your claim relies on an indirect and unlikely inference. It seems to me that your claims, if anything, are what would be remarkable - if your claims were accurate, they would say so. But as it happens, most professors are often very willing to discuss their experiments with the public. I invite you to send an email to them asking what the role of the analyzer crystal is - whether it does change the coherence length or not - and to report back the full email exchange. Again, to try to simplify the conversation, the main question I would like answered is the following: How do you get from "The thing to keep in mind is that we determine the coherence length after the interference has taken place, far downstream from the interferometer." to your claim that the coherence length is determined within the NI, and that the analyzer crystal leaves it unchanged? =Uncool-

Where? Based on the abstract, I'm doubting this assertion, unless you can back it up. Certainly not if your assertion is wrong, which I'm now doubting. Or, alternatively, they are saying that the change in the coherence length means that they can't think of it as a particle; that does not say that it is determined in the NI. Only once you add in your apparent assumption that the coherence length is determined in the NI. I don't know. You are the one who presented the experiment in the first place. Or the coherence length isn't "determined" in the NI. In other words, part of the function of the analyzer crystal is to change the coherence length. What if they don't have to, because the change in the coherence length is caused directly by the analyzer crystal? In other words, what the analyzer crystal may do is it changes the wave directly, rather than "reaching into" the NI to change it. No need for "elementary waves", nothing. Source, please. Which "leading experts on neutron interferometry"? I am saying that you haven't shown that qm expects anything different. Please source the claim that "they did not expect ... the change in coherence length caused by the analyzer crystal". What I'm saying I expect at the moment is that I think that the analyzer crystal does change the neutrons directly - that the coherence length is not "determined in the NI". The main question I want you to answer - in fact, at the moment, the only question I want you to answer - is the following: Source the claim that "The experimenters admit that for qm the coherence length is determined in the NI." =Uncool-

OK, so the frequency is the one which corresponds (under E = hv) to the kinetic energy of the neutron? In other words, the analyzer crystal is supposed to separate the neutrons based on their kinetic energy? That's not what it's about. That's your take on it. Do you have the full quote? No, you haven't, since you haven't been able to say what nearly any of the pieces do. You haven't explained almost any part of the experiment. I'm not even sure that it necessarily does. And part of why I'm asking you all these questions is to determine whether that's even a problem in the first place. As it happens, I have found the abstract for the 1992 paper; it includes the following quote: "By use of an analyzer crystal, we narrow the spectral distribution after the mixing and interference has occurred in the last crystal slab of the NI. This increases the coherence length and restores some of the fringe visibility." In other words, your claim that the analyzer crystal is irrelevant to the coherence length seems to contradict what they are saying. In other, other words, this effect is precisely what qm expects, and in fact is the exact reason why the analyzer crystal was placed there. =Uncool-

How? What frequency? Then you don't know what the experiment is actually presenting. Do you have anything to back that up? Again, I do not accept your interpretation, and would appreciate it if you would hold it back and instead actually answer my questions. I'm asking you to explain the experiment you claim as by far the strongest basis of your ideas, not to continue repeating your claims without basis. You seem to be unable to do so. It is your problem to explain how such a calculation is a problem for quantum mechanics; that includes understanding what the calculations say. =Uncool-

Eugene, you still aren't answering my question. I'm asking you how the analyzer crystal detects the coherence length. I have the idea that it's probably coupling coherence length to momentum, but you are the one who is presenting the experiment and therefore should be able to explain it. I'm not saying that it's affecting the coherence length. I'm not claiming anything about the experiment. I'm asking you, and you're not answering. =Uncool-

I can't agree or disagree with it, because it doesn't seem to mean anything. What do you mean by "share the same frame of reference" in this case? It looks like you are mixing up what happens in relativistic classical (non-quantum) mechanics, where every simple object (i.e. no separate parts) has a unique frame of reference where it is not moving, and classical (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics. And the point I was making is that "predicts" is a very strong word in science, and that this was not an appropriate use for it. No, it is not even close to what you are saying. Einstein's assumption said nothing about a maximum at all - only the statement that the speed of light is exactly c. In fact, special relativity doesn't rule out particles going faster than light at all; it just says that in some frames, they will go backwards in time. It takes quantum field theory to rule out communication using such particles. So no, my quote is not what you were saying at all. Then you have an odd idea of what an explanation provides. Einstein's postulate is that light moves at c; your postulate is that "elementary waves" move at c. That isn't an explanation; it's just pushing the question back. The math that is used is derived from reality. So no, the two are not mutually exclusive. No, I am not rare. One of the major points about entanglement is that there is no information being passed - that is by far the consensus view. The only things which might be rare with respect to this are my interpretation of collapse, which I did not even hint at above. From Wikipedia on quantum entanglement: "The outcome of Alice's measurement is random. Alice cannot decide which state to collapse the composite system into, and therefore cannot transmit information to Bob by acting on her system." Given all of your previously demonstrated misunderstandings of quantum mechanics, I'd like the explanation from someone who was actually an expert on quantum mechanics. No, that doesn't include Little. I am asking you to explain any of them, but to include the math. But it has to detect the coherence length; how does it do so? Somehow I doubt that "there is no maths for the analyzer crystal given by qm". But even then, you should be able to explain further what it does. Given a neutron wave with a certain coherence length, what does the analyzer crystal do with it? Does it change its momentum in proportion to that coherence length? What does it do? Then the analyzer crystal must be giving the neutrons momentum based on their coherence lengths, right? In other words, it must be coupling the momentum with the coherence length. =Uncool-

Quantum mechanics is usually done nonrelativistically; there are relativistic versions of quantum mechanics, but quantum field theory is both better-known and more general. Further, this statement seems to be nonsense; what do you mean by "the wave-particle has a single frame of reference from the special relativity point of view"? No, you can't. It post-dicts special relativity. The word "predicts" means "to say before", i.e. to make a claim about an outcome before the outcome is clear. So no, it doesn't "predict" special relativity. Now, the fact that it is claimed to reduce to special relativity in the limit is a good thing - in fact, a necessary thing. But that is not the same as predicting it. As it happens, the widely-known form is not. The widely-known theory that is in agreement (and, in fact, reduces to it) is quantum field theory (again, there is also the less-widely known relativistic quantum mechanics). Then TEW is behind even quantum field theory. In other words, you know less about it, so since you lack any knowledge of a contradiction, it's more likely not to have a contradiction? Actually, he didn't. The assumption only was that the speed of light was c, period. Read his original paper: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ . The assumptions are here: "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. " As it happens, quantum field theory has also given the answer to this in its more general form - why it's impossible for information to be passed at a speed greater than c. It does so by proving that the commutator (or in case of fermions, anticommutator) of the field at two points which are separated by a spacelike interval must be 0, which means that the creation of a particle at a point cannot affect the creation of a particle at another point unless the particle that was created at the first point can reach the second point (approximately). Not...quite. Entanglement means that there is a correlation between things that are more than c apart; that's not the same as having effects that travel faster than c. Please show the math behind this. In fact, you've given me an experiment; now I'll give you an experiment to explain while I continue to work through your experiment. Please read this article, and then explain the math of the "two elementary waves combining into one": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clauser_and_Horne%27s_1974_Bell_test I also have a few more questions about the experiment you've given me. You've said that the analyzer crystal acts as a prism; does that mean that it somehow couples the momentum and the coherence length of the neutron? Can you give me a mathematical description of what it does with a given incoming wave? And then am I correct that the detectors both detect the collision of neutrons with the detectors and the position of those neutrons? =Uncool-

No, I'm not taking your word for that. You have yet to actually answer any questions about this experiment, so I can't give an answer myself. Not all interpretations are. I've already shown you one. Stop asserting and start answering questions already. What is the experiment? You have yet to actually write any detail about the experiment. You need to be reminded that you still haven't yet even started to answer the questions I have. Would you like a reminder of what the questions are? =Uncool-

The "all others transcendental" was the following question, as I interpreted it: If cos(x) is algebraic, then is x necessarily a rational multiple of pi? Coupled with the fact that cos(pi*x) is decreasing on [0, 1/2] (which is what I should have said, rather than [0, 1]) and the intermediate value theorem, that question is equivalent to the bijection question. I don't see where there was a question about the image of an uncountable set being the set of algebraic numbers. =Uncool-

No, I am not, and "antineutrons moving backwards in time" is not an accurate paraphrase of what I wrote. Reread what I wrote. First, as I said, I was referring to what happens without superdeterminism. Second, what I said was that an interpretation was that antineutrons moving forwards in time was the same as neutrons moving backwards in time. In other words, there are interpretations that don't use this. Not quite. I am comfortable with being able to think of "effects backwards in time", under a different interpretation than the one I favor. As I said, I don't explain the experiment yet, because you haven't explained what the experiment is yet. =Uncool-

Then they don't have the same math. They have some math in common, but they do not have the same math in general. Now that you've agreed with that, we can continue. How about the easiest relevant experiment, that of Bell's theorem? In order to rule out the combination of locality and determinism (that is, to rule out both of them being true simultaneously), Bell's theorem needs that the experimenter must be able to set the detectors to be in any direction; however, superdeterminism (or alternatively, the denial of counterfactual definiteness) basically says that that is impossible - that the detectors themselves are set by the laws of physics and cannot simply be set in any direction. That doesn't really explain what it does. Please explain further. You need to explain this further. Please link to such a "qm supporter", please. Even without superdeterminism, no time reversal is needed, unless you are referring to the propagation of antineutrons as a move backwards in time by neutrons (which, again, is an interpretation). I cannot answer, as the experiment really hasn't been described fully enough. What, precisely, is detected, and how do you derive the coherence length from that? What precisely does the analyzer crystal do? Finally, I am a math person. Please show the math, not just the diagrams. =Uncool-

But that isn't the question - the question is whether the functions sin(pi*x) and cos(pi*x) create a bijection between rational numbers between 0 and 1 and algebraic numbers between 0 and 1, both of which are countable. =Uncool-

Then the math must be different, because the math is exactly what gives the predictions. I'm not subscribing to a journal that looks like it's a crackpot journal. If you're going to try to claim your theory, present its ideas here; don't just point elsewhere. You are quoting a common claim about Bell's theorem that is only true if you make other assumptions. Look up superdeterminism; it is both local and deterministic. Please name them. Any superdeterministic theory. I personally prefer such theories. The claim that there are no local hidden variable theories makes the assumption of counterfactual definiteness; denying that allows both locality and determinism, at the expense of some ideas of free will. =Uncool-

Then are the predictions from "TEW" and quantum mechanics the same or different? If the predictions are the same, then it is an interpretation; if the predictions are different, then they do not use the same math. Actually, this idea is specifically from one of the interpretations of qm, not from qm itself. There are interpretations of qm which are local. Further, you've added determinism, which should be on a separate line; even then, there are interpretations of qm which are deterministic - and even interpretations of qm which are both local and deterministic, which can work by violating other hypotheses of Bell's theorem. There is one interpretation of the pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics; this doesn't change anything about whether "TEW" is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. What you're saying here is unclear, but it looks exactly like a different interpretation. See above. Actually, "effects backwards in time" is not a part of quantum mechanics at all; it isn't even a part of quantum physics except as a specific interpretation of it. Then are the predictions the same or different? You've claimed earlier that there is an experimental difference, which implies a predictive difference; a predictive difference does imply a mathematical difference. And "explanations of reality" are not physics; they are metaphysics, and not scientific in the sense that they are not testable - what is testable are predictions, which are derived from the math. =Uncool-

If the math isn't different, then the predictions aren't different; if the predictions aren't different, then it's another interpretation of quantum mechanics. And demonstrating the math shouldn't need to come even close to breaking copyright. =Uncool-

At least for sin and cos, no. The proof I can see goes pretty deep, into the difference between algebraic integers and algebraic numbers. A number is algebraic if it is the root to a polynomial; it is an algebraic integer if it is a root for a monic polynomial. It turns out that algebraic integers are a proper subring of algebraic numbers. We can see pretty easily that for any rational number p/q, 2 cos((p/q) pi) and 2 sin((p/q) pi) are algebraic integers, as (looking only at cos for now) 2 cos((p/q) pi) = e^((p/q) i pi) + e^(- (p/q) i pi), and the latter two are algebraic integers (as they both satisfy the equation x^(2q) - 1 = 0, and that polynomial is monic). Therefore, if you take an algebraic number between 0 and 1 that is not half of an algebraic integer, it is algebraic, but can't be cosine of a rational multiple of pi. A similar proof works for sin. And you can clearly get sec and csc, as they are just inverses. I don't have an obvious proof or disproof now for tan, though. =Uncool-

Because the difference between the two is too small to be displayed (or may even have been rounded off). =Uncool-

Plenty of data is still there, as your own link shows. We haven't reached the 12-hour interval in between shots that you can see on nearly every set of pictures. But there are still pictures from around 0100 this morning. I am curious as to why the pictures yesterday were at an odd time (around 1400 instead of 1300), as well as what the pixelated image is, but you are jumping to conclusions. =Uncool-

You may want to quit your day-job as a mind-reader. You are truly atrocious at it. I'm offering to do the calculation because you are claiming to want to know what relativity says. You are the one asking what would happen under certain circumstances; I am offering to do the calculation for you. If you don't want the answer to the question you asked, just say so. If you are interested, all you have to do is say yes, and I will do the calculation, including my best attempt to translate it back into words. =Uncool-

Not necessarily as easily as you claim. Which is why I'm offering to do the calculation. It can be calculated in terms of current, by letting the charge density be a variable. It may be a yes/no question, but it still involves calculation. So I am offering to do the calculation. Do you want it or not? No, you don't. You proclaim such. =Uncool-

Because we use words to communicate, and so using the wrong words means being unable to communicate. You are crowing about people saying that they cannot answer "why," when they can (and have) answered "how." So people are pointing out that they have given at least as much justification as you have. That's your choice, since it's your picture. But if that's true, then "But the only difference between the third diagram and the first is that the protons are moving to the left instead of the electrons moving to the right" is wrong for two separate reasons. Once again, I'm offering to do the calculation. Do you want me to or not? =Uncool-