Sue... wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
...
This thread is about continuity in space-time or so. One of the
principles that I think holds in physics is that every particle has a
wavelength, de Broglie or so.

Although electrons were sent one by one,
interference fringes could be observed. These
interference fringes are formed only when electron
waves pass through on both sides of the electron
biprism at the same time but nothing other than this.
Whenever electrons are observed, they are always
detected as individual particles. When accumulated,
however, interference fringes are formed. Please
recall that at any one instant there was at most
one electron in the microscope. We have reached
a conclusion which is far from what our common
sense tells us.
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm

So... we must reconsider the experiment and the conribution
the apparatus makes to observed wave properties.

Sue...
...

Maybe, the gluon just represents the wave of energy trapped in a
pattern that is localized basically to the particle where the apparent
mass or inertia is a consequence of the lightspeed wave trapped in the
pattern, observing itself.

Nah, that's ridiculous.

The notion that the energy at given waveforms basically makes its own
interference pattern, tuning it on itself, might in one sense have the
pattern observing itself go the other way at 2c, or with it restricting
itself to 1/2 c so observing itself at c, and in another sense going to
zero.

That's pretty much nonsense.

I wrote that before reading your post.

Ask Nyquist.

http://www.hyperflight.com/primer.htm

Quantization is denormalization. Quantum mechanics is not yet my
field. Ha ha ha. Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(physics)

So, an electron goes barreling out of an emitter, and a dot of phosphor
glows on the screen. It's position seems random. The next one
follows, then another and another, the samples of the relatively random
process exhibit the characteristics of having a probability
distribution.

What's the problem?

You left out the prism.
Which logically is the only structure will all the
information to produce the pattern.

BTW electron-Young experiments are not as old as
many think. They have been in textbooks for decades
but in laboratories, only recently. Ahhh Hitachi
I think. The double-slit experiment
Editorial: September 2002

This article is an extended version of the article "The double-slit
experiment" that appeared in the September 2002 issue of Physics
World (p15). It has been further extended to include three letters
about the history of the double-slit experiment with single electrons
that were published in the May 2003 issue of the magazine.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/1



Toss the electrons through a polarizing filter, you know, that filters
by wavelength, at various energies so they have various wavelengths.

I built a computer once with a large cardboard box and
a vacuum cleaner. When I hid inside the box it did
what my playmate tho't computers did. )

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ffraction.html

Which ones come through? If the electrons are selectively blocked by
wavelength or frequency selective filtering, then they have a
wavelength or frequency, like photons do.

The Hitachi experiment seems to suggest they are not
always blocked and seems very sensitve to the blocking
structure. (apparatus)

Sue...


Put another detector or plate behind the first detector or plate. Have
it be quite a ways away. Does the electron go on a straight line
through the plates? Adjust the distance between the plates so the
period of the wave, if the particle has wave-like characteristics, is
not a multiple of the distance of the plates, so if it's a wave, the
detected locations would be off the line from the emitter through the
plates.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...bdbbc0c2d3ec7/

EPR: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen

Oh, about hidden variables, consider where there's basically x, y, z,
and t, and, where those are 1-4, there are the rest of the dimensions
in the cumulative hierarchy. Again, I'm beyond my meager algebra
skills here, x, y, and z are spacelike dimensions and t a time-like
dimension, and the light-like dimension(s) have a zero vector basis.
Why that is so, with the x, y, z, or e1, e2, e3, and on the other side
t, e^-1 1. I don't know.

If two particles can be sent in two directions at an obtuse angle, and
observing one causes the other to have the same spin, then that's
faster-than-light information. I hear there is teleportation or
instantaneous transport of particles in the laboratory, the IBM
teleportation deal. So, if there are quantum computers then there's
FTL communications.

When an electron is emitted, it leaves a shockwave not in the ether
because there's just flat space but in the physical media from which it
was torn and thrown. All the power that went into accelerating that
particle is hysterical and with crystalline elasticity, following
particles emerge from the same trans-Planckian regime. Electrons tend
to flow around in the molecules or metals, causing current leads to
magnetic fields.

Now in each paragraph above here in this post I have been using more
and more phrases and words that I don't very well understand and could
be misusing. That is not my intent.

Regards,

Ross F.

If two particles can be sent in two directions at an obtuse angle, and
observing one causes the other to have the same spin, then that's
faster-than-light information. I hear there is teleportation or
instantaneous transport of particles in the laboratory, the IBM
teleportation deal. So, if there are quantum computers then there's
FTL communications.


FTL anything violates SR. But, in trivial space, extremely small things
dont exist relative to an observer on our scale. So, because we cannot
observe time on extremely small scales, we have the "illusion" that
there is a 3rd dimension, and all dynamics in the 3rd dimension MUST be
instantaneous because time does not exist there.

FTL stuff is an illusion, but might be useable. Afterall - you really
can see reflections in a mirage. If those reflections had some
intrinsic value to you, then why not use them.

And, if something were trivial, or relatively nonexistent, then FTL
does not violate SR because it's trivial. I dont think that SR cares
whether some "nonexistent" thing travels FTL. So, you have a loophole.


When an electron is emitted, it leaves a shockwave not in the ether
because there's just flat space but in the physical media from which it
was torn and thrown. All the power that went into accelerating that
particle is hysterical and with crystalline elasticity, following
particles emerge from the same trans-Planckian regime. Electrons tend
to flow around in the molecules or metals, causing current leads to
magnetic fields.




Regards,

Ross F.

Math, in general, is considered to be a collection of abstractions, and
(perhaps) entirely separated from physical reality in various regards.

Transfinite set theory is certainly an abstraction. Cantor's cardinals
are abstract, formally.

But if spacetime has these weird properties, with a few more
assumptions we might get some weird things happening (in terms of
transfinite set theory). And you know something, even if it's wrong
it's still interesting because you are making a bunch a footprints in
the snow where most people dare not go. It may not be orthodox, but
it's still fun. Things should always be fun.

Maybe math might benefit from physics ? That would be weird indeed.

LEFTY wrote:
Math, in general, is considered to be a collection of abstractions, and
(perhaps) entirely separated from physical reality in various regards.

Transfinite set theory is certainly an abstraction. Cantor's cardinals
are abstract, formally.

But if spacetime has these weird properties,

Space-times has no physical properties. It is a mathematical
construction. Here is how you build it:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

If you want to relate it to 3d + 1d space observe this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Likely you are taking too seriouly the popular press's
H.G. Wells version of relativity. Both twins see each
and every frame of a commonly viewed movie screen no
matter in all the versions and mis-versions. What is
the point of time travling if you can't squeeze in an
extra trip to the concession stand? ;-)

with a few more
assumptions we might get some weird things happening (in terms of
transfinite set theory). And you know something, even if it's wrong
it's still interesting because you are making a bunch a footprints in
the snow where most people dare not go. It may not be orthodox, but
it's still fun. Things should always be fun.

Maybe math might benefit from physics ? That would be weird indeed.

Math benefits from physics when it recognizes that it
has more degrees of freedom than nature ever dreamed
of and applies adaquate rigor before drawing parallels
to the physical world.

Sue...

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| LEFTY wrote:
| Math, in general, is considered to be a collection of abstractions,
and
| (perhaps) entirely separated from physical reality in various
regards.
|
| Transfinite set theory is certainly an abstraction. Cantor's
cardinals
| are abstract, formally.
|
| But if spacetime has these weird properties,
|
| Space-times has no physical properties. It is a mathematical
| construction. Here is how you build it:
|
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html
|
| If you want to relate it to 3d + 1d space observe this:
| http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 and
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
|
| Likely you are taking too seriouly the popular press's
| H.G. Wells version of relativity. Both twins see each
| and every frame of a commonly viewed movie screen no
| matter in all the versions and mis-versions. What is
| the point of time travling if you can't squeeze in an
| extra trip to the concession stand? ;-)
|
| with a few more
| assumptions we might get some weird things happening (in terms of
| transfinite set theory). And you know something, even if it's wrong
| it's still interesting because you are making a bunch a footprints
in
| the snow where most people dare not go. It may not be orthodox, but
| it's still fun. Things should always be fun.
|
| Maybe math might benefit from physics ? That would be weird indeed.
|
| Math benefits from physics when it recognizes that it
| has more degrees of freedom than nature ever dreamed
| of and applies adaquate rigor before drawing parallels
| to the physical world.
|
| Sue...
|
Words benefit from literature when they recognize that they
have more degrees of freedom than Shakespeare ever dreamed
of and apply adaquate dictionary definition before drawing parallels
to the literary world.

Androcles.

I have a habit of tossing these things around without making too much
distinction. I probably should'nt do that.

But, most of my training is in math and so when I say spacetime I'm
just referring to the real stuff and not the abstract stuff. I think
that physicists consider spacetime abstract, and Minkowski(3+1) to be
real tangible space.


Cantor-like proofs are tricky. Requires you to think outside the box.
Unlike calculus which practically constructs itself, Cantor's diagonal
proof is like pulling a rabbit out of your hat. I dont know of any
reason to believe that this area of inquiry is completely and
exhaustively understood.

LEFTY wrote:
If two particles can be sent in two directions at an obtuse angle, and
observing one causes the other to have the same spin, then that's
faster-than-light information. I hear there is teleportation or
instantaneous transport of particles in the laboratory, the IBM
teleportation deal. So, if there are quantum computers then there's
FTL communications.


FTL anything violates SR. But, in trivial space, extremely small things
dont exist relative to an observer on our scale. So, because we cannot
observe time on extremely small scales, we have the "illusion" that
there is a 3rd dimension, and all dynamics in the 3rd dimension MUST be
instantaneous because time does not exist there.

FTL stuff is an illusion, but might be useable. Afterall - you really
can see reflections in a mirage. If those reflections had some
intrinsic value to you, then why not use them.

And, if something were trivial, or relatively nonexistent, then FTL
does not violate SR because it's trivial. I dont think that SR cares
whether some "nonexistent" thing travels FTL. So, you have a loophole.



I think instead on the "small" scales you get into the "vague fugue" of
the infinitesimals, mathematical infinitesimals, part of the real
numbers of the continuous real number line.

It's not necessarily wrong to think that those "real" numbers are
"real" in the sense of physical reality, except so are "imaginary" or
complex numbers.

It's like the consideration of quarks being composed of smaller
hadronic particles, so on and so on, with correspondingly stronger
nuclear forces for each particle division, mathematical infinitesimals.

About the SR proponents, EPR, and QM completeness, it seems that if the
SR proponents invoke EPR to show QM incompleteness, they violate SR.
???

Regards,

Ross F.

One notion of mathematics is that of Platonism, where basically all
mathematics represents real things and less abstractions, and also that
mathematics are tob e applied and applicable and that the unduly
abstract is absurd, like an exquisite filigree carved on each piece of
gravel to make a road.

I've never heard of anything in physics shown from "transfinite
cardinals". Do you actually have an example? Please present it.

Indeed, I promote a post-Cantorian theory, where infinite sets are
equivalent.

In that way, for example as you mention the results of calculus,
something like Leibniz' dx which survives in the notation, with the
integral bar being an elongated S for summation of those infinitesimal
differentials, is not shown basically wrong because there could not be
a mapping between the natural integers and real numbers, basically for
analytical results in the unit interval.

To equate "weird properties" with "transfinite cardinals" because they
seem myterious is like equating them with something else non-sensical.
That's not sensical.

I would be interested if you actually had some examples of the
transfinite cardinals, a mathematical constructin of dubious validity,
having application.

Something like Clifford algebra, it's used to predict the existence of
particles, for example, that are later proven to exist. Mathematics is
an incredibly powerful tool in physics.

You mention interdisciplinary notions and sharing of physics and
mathematics, for a long time, in the modern era, mathematics basically
led physics by fifty, say, or thirty or so years at a time, or more or
less, the mathematics needed to explain the physical properties was
found applicable at a later date. Now, as so much has gone into
physics and high energy physics and astronomy and so on, there are
several instances where experimental physics has certainly provided
insight into avenues of the mathematics.

Regards,

Ross F.

LEFTY wrote:
I have a habit of tossing these things around without making too much
distinction. I probably should'nt do that.

But, most of my training is in math and so when I say spacetime I'm
just referring to the real stuff and not the abstract stuff. I think
that physicists consider spacetime abstract, and Minkowski(3+1) to be
real tangible space.

If we can consider Albert Einstein a physicist, Here
is his opinion on the matter:


XVII. Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space
....
It is to be found rather in the fact of his recognition
that the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory
of relativity, in its most essential formal properties,
shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional
continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. 1 In order to
give due prominence to this relationship, however, we
must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an
***imaginary*** magnitude

http://www.bartleby.com/173/M11.GIF (equation sqrt -1 )

ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws
satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume
mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the
same rôle as the three space co-ordinates.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

Sue...



Cantor-like proofs are tricky. Requires you to think outside the box.
Unlike calculus which practically constructs itself, Cantor's diagonal
proof is like pulling a rabbit out of your hat. I dont know of any
reason to believe that this area of inquiry is completely and
exhaustively understood.

"LEFTY" wrote in message
ups.com...
|I have a habit of tossing these things around without making too much
| distinction. I probably should'nt do that.

You probably shouldn't, right.

|
| But, most of my training is in math and so when I say spacetime I'm
| just referring to the real stuff and not the abstract stuff.

And your definition of "stuff" is what?


| I think
| that physicists consider spacetime abstract, and Minkowski(3+1) to be
| real tangible space.

Since when did physicists think? That hasn't happened since Einstein
drove
them all crazy.
(x,y,z,t) is not a vector, it has no additive inverse.
You can rotate and skew the vector (x,y) with
[cos, sin]
[-sin, cos]
so that
x' = x.cosh+y.sinh
y' = -x.sinh+y.cosh
but you cannot rotate
x' = x.cosh+t.sinh
t' = -x.sinh+t.cosh
Its an illegal operation and meaningless, mere symbol shuffling.
t is not a vector and can never be negative.
Angle sinh cosh x y t x' y'
0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 -0.3


| Cantor-like proofs are tricky. Requires you to think outside the box.

Sometimes you need to think inside the box.

| Unlike calculus which practically constructs itself, Cantor's diagonal
| proof is like pulling a rabbit out of your hat. I dont know of any
| reason to believe that this area of inquiry is completely and
| exhaustively understood.

Keep being normal, you'll never make crackpot.
Androcles.