You believe that mass duplicates itself and goes through both slits?

[Mordred]

Lol here is color superposition

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjItIT6pNnRAhVI6GMKHZhwCXEQFghtMBU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.johnboccio.com%2Fcourses%2FPhys14_2005%2FQM_P6H%2FSuperposition_A.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFFqz4v5Uxjl4vj31oosy1kaeBSSw&sig2=np0jmetChytaKIAFM3OIxQ

Edited January 23, 2017 by Mordred

[imatfaal]

Lol here is color superposition

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjItIT6pNnRAhVI6GMKHZhwCXEQFghtMBU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.johnboccio.com%2Fcourses%2FPhys14_2005%2FQM_P6H%2FSuperposition_A.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFFqz4v5Uxjl4vj31oosy1kaeBSSw&sig2=np0jmetChytaKIAFM3OIxQ

 

Think you might have pasted the wrong link - that is just using colour as an analogy not as in qcd/qft

 

It is a very nice analogy - I have bookmarked Prof John Boccio's page for further reading so thanks

[Mordred]

Swansonts last comment reminded me of the analogy.

[Strange]

No physical mass for anything in superposition is just the tip of the iceberg. Anything in a superposition event can move at the speed of light or faster. Nothing is able to move at the speed of light unless it is capable of going into a superposition state. Anything in a superposition event can move at the speed of light or greater as mostly EM waves along its probability density map. The areas of the density map that are denser are the areas that the bulk of the object (EM waves) travel past the most. I call them ghosts.

 

I'm willing to pay for someone to write this into a formula.

 

I think a buckyball is good test subject.

A buckyball cannot move at the speed of light but can be in a superposition of states. Hypothesis falsified.

[pittsburghjoe]

I say it can, you don't have proof that says it can't. The large hadron collider can't get particles to the speed of light because they are observed particles.

[Mordred]

Sure he does, he understands physics. Mainly one of the earliest lessons in relativity massive objects cannot reach c.

 

Has nothing to do with whether or not its being observed

Edited January 24, 2017 by Mordred

[pittsburghjoe]

physical mass isn't present during superposition

[Strange]

physical mass isn't present during superposition

Any evidence?

[imatfaal]

physical mass isn't present during superposition

 

We hold ions in a state of superposition in electromagnetic traps - these electromagnetic traps rely on the particle behaving as expected and one of those expectations is the mass of the particle remaining.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/abs/nature04251.html

 

These are massive objects with size mass and charge - Be+ ions have an atomic weight of around 9; ie these are not photons with zero mass already or fundamental point particles like an electron. If they had zero mass the force on them due to their charge would accelerate them to the speed of light and they would not longer be confined in the trap. We know they maintain their mass because NIST scientists were able to hold six of them in a steady oscillation through a combination of lasers and the electromagnetic trap

 

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/11/nist-physicists-coax-six-atoms-quantum-cat-state

[swansont]

physical mass isn't present during superposition

In the atomic fountains I've helped build, we toss atoms up and put them in a superposition of the hyperfine states. Why do they follow the trajectory of massive particles and come back down, rather than the trajectory of massless particles?

 

Massless means moving at c, so obviously this doesn't happen. As a bonus, that would violate conservation of energy, which is another reason we know it doesn't happen.

 

You needn't respond. The answer is that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Phi for All]

physical mass isn't present during superposition

 

!

Moderator Note

pittsburghjoe, I'll explain the predicament before we decide whether to let you go as a member or not.

 

You keep opening doomed threads, claiming things you have no evidence for, such as the above. But we have experts and professionals who try to show you that you're wrong, or that you've misunderstood a concept. But you seem to think you can rewrite science without studying it deeply, by just applying what makes sense to you. You think the professionals (like Dr Swanson of the US Naval Observatory) who work with and apply these concepts have been misled by their hidebound thinking. But again, you support yourself only with your waving hands and your incredulity.

 

We aren't going to change our rules about evidence to support assertions. And make no mistake, you aren't challenging mainstream science, not without support of any kind. You're just spitting into the wind. You need to decide if you'd like to change your behavior and stay and learn, or find someplace else to test out your guesswork. The ball's in your court now. We'll decide after your next post.

[pittsburghjoe]

https://youtu.be/sGZG_JBr7uQ?t=8s

[imatfaal]

https://youtu.be/sGZG_JBr7uQ?t=8s

 

So we'll take that as you saying "No - I would prefer to carry on making stuff up and pretending. " Is actually learning too taxing? Admitting you don't have a fast-track to answers too humbling?

 

Here is my Mark Twain quote - and it fits you perfectly

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

We should have taken Sam's advice and left you to fester in your delusion