swansont

The explanation is that the spin of the electron is quantized. Can you re-phrase the question?

I stored my belongings for several months after I finished grad school and went home to live until I got a postdoc. Cheaper than moving it across country and back. They were fenced in and my unit had a lock. And I wasn't storing anything that had a high resale value.

Is that more or less irrational than expecting quantum behavior to be exactly like classical behavior, when quantum mechanics was developed because the behavior did not follow classical physics? The descriptions we give are hampered by the fact that people like to hold on to familiar, classical ideas, like particles and waves. Quantum particles behave like quantum particles, but that doesn't help bridge the gap of understanding, so we use the observation that they have elements of both wave behavior and particle behavior, and one will be present depending on how you are looking at them, similar to the example Markus has provided above. QM has more example of trying to explain some effect using classical terminology (I'm thinking of tunneling as a prime example). They are more like analogies than actual models, and always have limitations.

That's not present in the standard double-slit experiment, which you had asked about. If you had orthogonal polarizations in the double-slit, you would not see interference. Which is probably why people don't do this, unless they're trying to show the effect of the polarization on interference.

You also have an infinite combinations of initial conditions. How could you guarantee that you would recreate the exact conditions required? What if one of the influences was the temperature of the CMB, which could not be replicated at a later time? There are probably many variables that would not be the same. Composition of the matter available for star and planet formation, for another example - they would tend to have more heavy elements in them as we cycle through generations of stars.

Contradictions are not simple. It's not surprising that they arise because we are discussing special relativity, which is not Newtonian, and you can't mix-and-match models in this way. (it can lead to contradictions) It could be that whatever questions/confusion you have arise from such contradictions. What is needed is a self-consistent picture of what is going one. Newtonian physics is, and so is SR. The latter matches observation, the former fails to do so under situations like we are discussing. Are you going to address my example of kinetic energy, and whether that is an illusion for Bob? The issue is that length and time are absolutes in a Newtonian world, so we aren't used to thinking of them as variables. But you can derive the effects, as Einstein did, based on c being invariant — which is another thing that we're not used to in Newtonian physics — and you can also look at the experiments that confirm it. Most of them involve time, because time is easier to measure at the precision demanded by such experiments.

It’s a basis of one of your speculations and not relevant here. You refer to maths but there are no equations in that paper.

1. That’s how this works. People see I’ve raised the issue, and they refrain from being repetitive. and 2. That’s not an actual rebuttal of the issue, it’s dodging it. So if nothing moves, how can there be time dilation or length contraction?

! Moderator Note Do NOT bring your speculations into other threads.

The part where you said “Nothing moves in a block universe.” Or maybe where you said Bob is moving. Which it? Issues were raised, AFAICT you’ve ignored them.

How is this possible unless Bob is moving relative to the earth?

Explain why clocks at different speeds, and/or gravitational potentials, are observed (as in, there is experimental evidence) to run at different rates.

I’m not censoring anything. I’m reminding you that if you make claims you need to back them up, which is part of the rules. IOW, WAGs are not “conversation” If you will take care to notice, none of your material I quoted mentions God. If this is mere confusion on your part, you should pay attention. Your attempt at testable predictions falls well short of the rigor we require.You admit you aren’t a scientist, so how much “support” do I need that your posts lack rigor? You admitted as much when you said “I believe the best way to work out the details of a theory or hypothesis is through argument.”

Physicists failed to ascertain the nature of regular matter for only slight less time. That dark matter and dark energy need to be investigated is a relatively recent discovery. And AFAICT there’s no connection to philosophy here. ! Moderator Note Then please refrain from making non-mainstream scientific claims. If you make them, you will be expected to back them up

Because it’s not a polarization issue. If you’re using a common source of light for the double slit, you will have the same polarization. Orthogonal polarization doesn’t enter into the discussion. It’s a red herring.

You made a claim about relativity.

“Bob goes close to light speed in his ship” sounds like Bob is moving. That’s an interesting delusion.

So how is Bob moving?

Here is a repeat of the answer I posted ~7 hours ago: Because the polarizations do not cancel each other. You get more light, with both polarization states present. added: it might help to think about what's happening with the electric field

It depends on their speed relative to the train. False dichotomy. It is not an illusion, and it's not a physical effect that happens to the object. If an object is length-contracted to 1 meter, then everything measured in that frame will be consistent with the object being 1 meter long. In that frame, the length is 1 meter. Length is relative. Let's change the experiment to the train's kinetic energy, which is another relative quantity. If you are standing next to the train, or are otherwise at rest with respect to it, it has no kinetic energy. In Bob's frame, the train has a gamma factor of 100, so the train's kinetic energy is 99m0c2 Is that an illusion or actually happening? Are you willing to be Bob and collide with the train because it's just an illusion? The underlying issue is the assumption that there is a preferred frame of reference, which tells us the "truth" when there is no such thing. These measurements are frame-dependent. We are familiar with kinetic energy being frame-dependent, as it is Newtonian and obvious even for slow speeds, but much less so with time and length.

You used "you" in a response to a quote of my statement. Forgive me for drawing the obvious conclusion. I didn't say that a slit is a photon source, I said the double-slit experiment behaves as if it were. You continue to "rebut" statements I did not make. If you want to explain how two point sources of light will not interfere, feel free to do so, but absent that I think you have misconstrued my statements and/or are reading too much into them.

And part of what I don't understand. You need a photon source. I proposed no such model. Which is consistent with Huygens' principle, an early model of double-slit interference

Well, the only thing before the slits in the double-slit experiment is the photon source, so I'm not understanding your objection.

You're going to have to do more than hand-wave your way through this. What testable predictions can you make based on it?

That's always an issue for conventions, but as I said, it needs to be done in a consistent fashion.