Goodbye Quantum Wierdness

[Radical Edward]

An experiment performed by Shahriar S. Afshar has raised serious doubts about both the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and, to boot, the many-worlds interpretation. Recall that to date it was thought that all interpretations of QM would predict exactly the same phenomena. However, Afshar's experiment has shown an effect that violates complementarity and partitioned universe.

 

The experiment is very simple - it's a standard 2-slit affair, with the following modification: observe the dark bands in the standard experiment, and place wires in these dark areas. These regions are where the wave models destructively interfere. Ergo there is "nothing" there to detect. However, the wires would scatter particles if they were present - and it turns out they do. For the first time, we observe "photons" behaving as particles and waves at the same time (in the same universe). Bye-bye Copenhagen. Bye-bye Everett.

 

If this experimental result can be replicated - and it seems trivial to do - it may well spell the end of such notions as "photons"... and who knows what for electrons and so on? The favoured interpretation of QM may well become the Transactional model (based on de Broglie's original "pilot wave" theory); the required wierdness in this model comes from allowing waves to propogate backwards in time. This - whilst counter-intuitive - seems considerably less radical and unpleasant than Bohr's idea that the real world is "unknowable", and most scientists would admit that time is a poorly understood aspect of the world.

 

http://www.rowan.edu/news/display_article.cfm?ArticleID=965

[ydoaPs]

how do they know where the dark bands will be to place the wires?

[Radical Edward]

you can work that out using basic diffraction models, by calculating the points at which constructive and destructuve interference occur for two waves of identical phase.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

- it may well spell the end of such notions as "photons"...

 

It will WHAT?

[ydoaPs]

is the pattern always the same for the same light scource the same distance from the same two slots?

[Radical Edward]

is the pattern always the same for the same light scource the same distance from the same two slots?

 

 

yeap, basic diffraction stuff.

[Dave]

This is rather bad news for the Copenhagen interpretation then, although the experiment and its conclusions have to be subject to peer review.

[Dave]

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I'm interested to see whether there's been any new developments on this. I've been observing from a distance, but it seems that there hasn't really been a lot of progress with the entire peer-review stuff.

[TheProphet]

Read the article.. And i'll try to get hold of that number of New Scientist aswell! And i'll keep an watchfull eye after the one Photon experiment! HEnce this is truely interesting!

[Severian]

The interference bands only have a one dimensional line where the destructive interference is entire. Around that line, the interference band will be dark but not completly absent of light. So unless the wires are infinitely thin (which I presume they are not) the experiment shows nothing at all, because the measurement is still capable of collapsing the wavefunction.

[K. B. Robertson]

Would it be adequately brief and readable of Equus to suggest that Sir Arthur Eddington's 'waveicles' are being re-encountered here?

 

Weren't DeBroglie & Schroedinger on or near the very same wave length(s)?

 

Didn't Einstein say, 'There is no space empty of field'? And that 'the notion of discrete, discontinuous ('billiard ball like') particles with distinct surfaces separating them from surrounding space, is based on prejudice'? (Paraphrased. IDEAS & OPINIONS, Pt. II: Contributions to Science.)

 

When a circle representing a particle is divided into four 90 dg quadrants, and that circle is called a 4-D particle, and that particle has never been found (- even 'Particle Physics' has become a Standard of Reality that doesn't realistically qualify as anything more than an hypothesis)...

 

Isn't this an a priori standardization (based on subjective anthropomorphic senses) overruling emperically resolved experimental resolution, scientific heresy?

 

Don't the four 90 dg quadrants composing a consummate 'circle' represent the four dimensions Einstein discovered in everything that was previously considered three dimensional? Isn't the definition for physical dimensions the right angle motion (of whatever) out of the dimension preceding it?

 

A= geometric point. B=geometric point moving in (and thereby generating) a one dimensional straight line? When that one dimensional straight line A to B, moves at right angles to itself, B to C, does that not constitute the geometric progression from a dimensionless geometric point (A), to a one dimensional straight line (A-B), and does not that straight line B - C become a two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90dg) to itself?

 

The resulting two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90 dg) to itself, doesn't that generate a three dimensional space, occupied or unoccupied by matter?

 

Does not every expedition in search of a 'particle', so far, return only with increasing evidence that there are only charges of electricity, emitting longer or shorter frequencies of electricity and magnetism, always having the same value?

The shorter (ultraviolet related) waves being more dense, and the longer (infrared related) waves being more tenuous - and that 'there is no contact between physical systems', since such event requires the interaction of two or more discontinuous 'surfaces', and that such discrete, discontinuous boundaries continue to elude our - post hoc ergo prompter hoc - perception of what cnsistently proves to be ('surfaceless') 'contact' and 'collision': confined to an a priori subjective interpretation; without an objective leg, stool or platform to stand, sit or enjoy an encore upon?

 

(Ph.D 'particle physicists': Quo Vadis?)

 

'No two particles ever come into contact. When they get 'too close', they move off'. - Bertrand Russell, THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

 

Charges of electricity that fulfill the formal definition for 'material particle'; that is, microcosmic entities that occupationally demand three or more dimensions of space, disallow the simultaneous occupation of it's space by any other 'particle' (surfaceless charge of electricity), and possesses negative and positive inertia... (Heavy and Inert Mass)...

 

Didn't Einstein prove that 'three dimensional matter is actually four dimensional', and that the previously unrecognized (so called, 'incomprehensible', 'unimaginable') 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion?

Are not the above described progressions of dimensions generated by moving at right angles - ninety degrees - from the preceding dimension?

 

Doesn't this geometric law of right angle moving, progressively generated dimensions, require all three dimensional entities to be moving at right angles to themselves: in one of two possible directions, either constantly growing smaller, or constantly growing larger (in either case, at right angles to the three recognized dimensions constituting any such entity) - in order to fulfill their Einsteinien and geometric proved identity as four dimensional entities?

 

Is not the physical universe consistently found - while remaining unrecognized: as constantly growing larger - moving at right angles to all three of it's dimensions, fulfilling it's obligation to be four dimensional, or, constantly growing smaller - moving at right angles to all three of it's recognized dimensions. in either case, fulfilling its established (if 'incomprehensible' and 'unimaginable') identity as four dimensional...?

 

Doesn't this correspond to the four ninety degree quadrants making up a circle? And, if and when anything moves at right angles out of that four dimensional circle, isn't whatever that may be, obliged to be identified as the 5th dimension (moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter)?

 

Isn't electricity in fact generated by four dimensional matter, and isn't it observed to be constantly moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter, and, doesn't that require the arbiters of scientific definitions and nomenclature to recognize and identify electricity as the 5th dimension: moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter? Wouldn't that 5th ninety degree quadrant be obliged to occur outside the four quadrants that fulfill and complete a circle?

 

Might not the transition of a fifth ninety degree quadrant exponentially constitute what is otherwise the unexplained 'quantum leap', furthermore explaining why each such 5th ninety degree quadrant generated by and projected from the 4 ninety degree quad circle of 4-D matter it is an extension of, always has the same value - 'just like photons', i.e., Planck's Constant h factor? (Which is considered a contradiction of field physics, rather than an extensional consequence of it...)

 

Could not that so called 3-D 'particle' in this way be recognized as a 4-D charge of expanding electricity, emitting 'quantum leaps'; invariably having the same uniform values - the issued 5th ninety degree quadrant (obliged to occur outside of and be projected by the 4-D matter that emits it)?

 

Moreover, doesn't magnetism invariably accompany electricity, and doesn't it invariably move at right angles to electricity, and isn't that a requirement for those 'professionals' in charge of paying attention to and interpreting such dynamics, to recognize and identify magnetism as the 6th dimension...?

 

Since Einstein proved formerly perceived '3-D matter' is actually 4-Dimensional, and that the 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion (modifying 'space and time', to 'space-time', because the 'two' were then recognized as being inseparable), and the laws of geometric progression require 3-D entities to be moving at right angles to all three of their recognized dimensions, having one of two alternatives therefore, of constantly moving at right angles from themselves, growing ever smaller, as the '4-D space-time continuum', or, growing ever larger, as the 4-D space-time continuum.

 

If: Einstein and the laws of the progression of dimensions are correct, and since objects released above the earth's surface don't 'fall upward' (which would prove a constantly contracting physical universe made up of ever shrinking charges of electricity), but instead, objects released above the earth's surface are observed to 'fall down'....

 

Doesn't this mean that the object (Newton's apple, for example) doesn't really move from A to B, but rather that the entire coordinate system - the physically expanding earth (and universe), in it's constantly ongoing enlargement, including the uniformly expanding observer and all of his instruments of measurement, are moving from B to A, creating the illusion of the (whatever) 'falling' object, by way of the ever expanding acceleration of the entire coordinate system earth, beneath the 'falling' object, creating the illusion that the object is moving 'downward', rather than that the earth (entire frame of reference) is rising up to meet it....?

 

Wouldn't this explain what Einstein meant when he said that the apparent parabolically curved trajectory of a thrown baseball or fired cannonball for example, is not actually curved, but is actually straight - a 'geodesic' - because 'space-time curves' around the apparently descending object and generates the illusion of a parabolically trajectoried object...?

 

Is not the explanation herein, why all objects, regardless of their mass value, 'descend' at the same rate of acceleration and strike the earth at the same time, when simultaneously released from the same height?

Since, cannon ball and bb shot are not actually falling at all, but only appearing to do so due to the ubiquitous uniform expansion of the entire frame of reference, including any and all observers and test objects? Which scenario reveals the illusion of an apparently falling object; with the earth instead rising up to overtake, meet and strike it, rather than conversely?

 

Non mathematically and comprehensively explaining why inert and heavy mass 'coincidentally, cancel each other out', anomalously said to account for what Einstein called 'an astonishing coincidence', and based his entire General Theory of Relativity upon) - otherwise a blatent contradiction of Newton's Laws of Gravity, which clearly require a proportionately increasing gravity generated by a correspondingly larger mass; therefore dictating a scenario of a greater mutual attraction between a falling cannon ball and the earth, than between a falling bb shot and the earth, resulting in what is certainly 'supposed to be' the inevitably faster rate of descent for correspondingly 'heavier' objects (Re: Aristotelian thought - which is reasonable enough, but in this case is - remarkably - inapplicable)...

 

In this universal status quo, would not a so called 'black hole singularity' actually be a 3-D static object in a 4-D expanding universe; with the 3-D object becoming as small and dense as the 4-D universe became large and uniformly tenous around it, forever (squared)?

 

Would this not leave the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy intact, since we are considering the same amount of uniformly expanding energy increasingly distributing itself over ever larger volumes of (metric functional, rather than non-metric absolute) space, where all constantly expanding physical charges (neutrons, protons, electrons, mu mesons, et al) remain relatively the same size and density, without the requirement of 'the spontaneous creation of hydrogen' which caused Bondi and Hoyle to abandon the othewise entirely tenable 'Steady State Theory' (Now foregrounding a so called 'Big Bang' to 'explain' the - unexpectedly discovered, 1927 thru '32 (Sylpher-Hubble) spatially expanding universe.

Whereas, the astrophysical consensus on the structural dynamics of the observed spatially expanding ('beginning') universe proves out that there is no common ('big bang', 'ylem', 'cosmic egg') center from which the ('red shift') expanding universe, expands...

 

That is, no matter where the observer is located in universal space, the expanding universe exhibits celestial systems, light sources, stars, galaxies, etceteras, to be moving in direct line of sight...

Indicative of a repelling force (What Einstein called the 'Cosmological Constant', symbolizing it in his equations with the Greek letter Lambda - ^) acting out of individual material systems, macrocosmically affirming Bertrand Russell's observation about microcosmic 'particles' (charges of electrictiy having no distinct boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers): 'No two particles (macrocosmic systemic material celestial entitities) ever come into contact, when they get too close, they move off'. - Bertrand Russell THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

 

Is not the unexpected and 'unexplained' Relativistic discovery that physical matter contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate proportional to its velocity: because matter is an ever expanding-accelerating field, and that the successful *application by Einstein of the transformations of H.A. Lorentz (who developed the conversions exclusively for the description of field energy) *to so called 'particles', proves that the issued contraction of physical matter is actually 'Doppler effect', as exclusively applicable to field energy...?

 

If so called falling objects are actually being overtaken and struck by the ever ongoing rising up of the entire coordinate system, creating the illusion of 'falling objects' (much as the axial spinning motion of the earth at 24,000 mph, generates the illusion that the sun and celestial vault revolve around it every 24 hours); doesn't this mean that the so called 'impelling (attractive) force' (F) of gravity is actually 'a repelling force' (as Newton offers that gravity may in fact be, *in those words, in his three page Preface to the PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA?)

 

'The idea that brute, inanimate matter can inexplicably act at a distance across space to influence other matter, is to me so great an absurdity that no man with a competent faculty for thinking could ever fall into it.'

- Isaac Newton, on universal gravity <Paraphrased>).

 

Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and projecting through space (gravity was once thought to act at a distance instantaneously, when in fact it - non-coincidentally - has been found to move at exactly the same speed as light, since that's what it is).

 

Whereas, it was and is the cardinal objective of Einstein's (presently abandoned) Unified Field, to find gravity and electromagnetism two apparently unrelated phenomena, actually having the same identity... (Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with which (in 1919) he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe, eight years

before it was discovered. He called it the biggest mistake he ever made in his life; which indeed it was, insofar as it was a mistake for him to have allowed 'the (non-sequiturial) scientific community', to persuade him that what he had predicted - a spatially expanding universe - was caused by a 'big bang beginning' (perceived as being 'inevitable', when the observed expansion was 'back-tracked' to an assumed point of origin, where all of the receding light sources and celestial systems were assumed to converge on one point in space from which the expansion 'began'. Whereas, that is a three dimensional restriction imposed on an allegedly 'acknowledged' 4-D universe; wherein the back tracking does not recede to a point of intersection, but rather where that would-be finite beginning intersection which is said to have contained all of the matter of the universe, generating pressures and temperatures resulting in an explosion, causing the observed spatial expansion as it is presently seen; moreover perceived as destined to result in a 'universal heat death', where the expansion will dissapate all of matter to a point of 'non-motion'. There are variations on the so called big bang theory, one of which purports a 'pulsating universe', that endlessly 'big bangs', spreads out to a point of stoppage, collapses on itself, big bangs, spreads out to 'heat death', collapses on itself, ad infinitum.

The big bang 'theory' is not a theory at all, but rather (like 'particle theory') only a hypothesis, and a very poorly founded one, for which there has yet to emerge any tractable proof at all.

Lemaitre and many others since, upon being surprised to discover the spatial universe was expanding, were put upon to conjure an explanation for it; resulting in the ad hoc, ex parte jiffyfix of the so called big bang. Hawkings has the moment of intersection and the 'resulting explosion' - the moment of 'beginning'- down to a nano-gnat's caboose: chronologically and spatially applied to an event that did not happen.

 

As this record has previously observed, Stephan Hawking's personal and political courage is not in question, here; whereas his 'refinement' of the big bang: fine tuning what is among the most grandiosely celebrated faux pax's in the history and evolution of science - which today insists it 'acknowledges' the 4-D space-time continuum, while simultaneously excluding it from the big bang theory - which is intractable in a 4-D universe, where the so called limiting point of convergence and intersection of all universal matter, 'runs out of space', only in three dimensions...

Whereas, in four dimensions, the back-tracked spatially expanding universe only becomes infinitely smaller, squared. The 4th D proves that smallness is just as endless as largeness. Whereas, the 3-D restricted big bang is about as tenable (in the words of K. Kostner playing Jim Garrison in JFK) as an elephant hanging over a cliff, with its tail tied to a daisy...

 

On the other hand, it seems that gravitational force on or near a massive coordinate system is a repelling force, whereas, it likewise seems to be an impelling force at great distances (refer, aquatic, terrestrial and aquatic tides). Einstein reasoned that the Cosmological Constant was a parallel but opposite vector in tandem with and counteracting Newton's (ever causally unidentified) gravitational force of attraction; which even Newton himself candidly critisized - in the spirit of a true scientist - because he could not explain why a universe full of mutually attracting bodies did not collapse on itself.

When it was learned that the spatial universe was expanding, Einstein's prediction was poo-pawd, superimposed with the ad hominem hustle of the big bang gang, all advocates of which schizophrenically 'acknowledge' the 4th D, while ignoring it as a disqualification of their elaborately pampered, groomed and well scrubbed 'democratic' dismissal of reality, for lack of evidence...

 

Is not a good title for a series of observations like this: GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION (Electricity is the 5th dimension. Magnetism is the 6th dimension)? The Non-Mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field...

 

The question is not: 'Where, what and when is the 4th dimension?'

The question is: 'Where, what and when is it not?'

 

The challenge is not in the proving of it.

The challenge is in the disproving of it.

 

Everyone and anyone can see that the universe revolves around the earth every 24 hours; just as they can see that home run base-balls and spiral pigskin passes travel in parabolic trajectories, and that precipitating objects descend from A to B, rather than the entire systemic coordinate frame of reference ascending from B to A...

The Inquisition is alive and well; only its methods have changed.