Discussion:
paradox in quantum mechanics
(too old to reply)
jsp
2004-10-21 06:21:51 UTC
Permalink
For nice explanations of several
intriguing issues in quantum mechanics
(uncertainty, decoherence, entanglement, Schrödinger's cat,
the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,
and the collapse of the wave function)
click on the first report at
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/index.html

which is part of a review of the book
"The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene at
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html

Enjoy!






-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
2004-10-21 14:36:09 UTC
Permalink
"jsp" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
advertising
Post by jsp
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/index.html
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html
Your page:
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html#quantumissues
says

"Special relativity destroyed the concept of ether. General relativity
resurrected it."

If we are to think of GR as a mechanistic theory, then I would be
forced to agree. The concept of an aether is required. Spacetime
is the aether.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
robert j. kolker
2004-10-21 14:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
"Special relativity destroyed the concept of ether. General relativity
resurrected it."
If we are to think of GR as a mechanistic theory, then I would be
forced to agree. The concept of an aether is required. Spacetime
is the aether.
GR is a geometric theory. Mechanistic theories are superseded.

Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
2004-10-21 15:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
advertising
Post by jsp
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/index.html
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html#quantumissues
says
"Special relativity destroyed the concept of ether. General relativity
resurrected it."
If we are to think of GR as a mechanistic theory, then I would be
forced to agree. The concept of an aether is required. Spacetime
is the aether.
You fucking imbecile,

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
"Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
2004-10-21 16:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
"Special relativity destroyed the concept of ether. General
relativity resurrected it."
If we are to think of GR as a mechanistic theory, then I would be
forced to agree. The concept of an aether is required. Spacetime
is the aether.
Naturally, Albert Einstein agrees with Mr. Shubert:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked
through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." (Albert
Einstein, Leiden Lecture, 1920)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm

"Simpletons! How long will you wallow in ignorance?
Cynics! How long will you feed your cynicism?
Idiots! How long will you refuse to learn?"
Proverbs 1:22.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Eugene Shubert
Sam Wormley
2004-10-21 16:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
"Simpletons! How long will you wallow in ignorance?
Cynics! How long will you feed your cynicism?
Idiots! How long will you refuse to learn?"
Proverbs 1:22.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eugene Shubert
Poor old Shubert....
"Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
2004-10-21 17:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Poor old Shubert....
Poor decrepit falsifying worm; he can't justify his defamation!
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=***@posting.google.com

"Simpletons! How long will you wallow in ignorance?
Cynics! How long will you feed your cynicism?
Idiots! How long will you refuse to learn?"
Proverbs 1:22.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Eugene Shubert

"Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
2004-10-21 14:36:51 UTC
Permalink
"jsp" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
advertising
Post by jsp
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/index.html
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html
Your page:
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html#quantumissues
says

"Though invisible, Newton and other early scientists regarded space
as an almost physical medium, a substance that allowed, for example,
light to propagate from one place to another. Space was to light as
water was to a wave."

References please. I'm certain that Newton thought of light as a
particle.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
robert j. kolker
2004-10-21 14:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
References please. I'm certain that Newton thought of light as a
particle.
He ultimately did. But he toyed around with aetheric theories along the
same line as Descartes but ultimately rejected them because they did not
fit the facts. Newton took Descartes very seriously and spent several
years showing Descartes apporach was unfruitful.

Bob Kolker
"Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
2004-10-21 16:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by robert j. kolker
Post by "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
References please. I'm certain that Newton thought of light as a
particle.
He ultimately did. But he toyed around with aetheric theories along
the same line as Descartes but ultimately rejected them because they
did not fit the facts. Newton took Descartes very seriously and
spent several years showing Descartes apporach was unfruitful.
Bob Kolker
"Though invisible, Newton and other early scientists regarded space
as an almost physical medium, a substance that allowed, for example,
light to propagate from one place to another. Space was to light as
water was to a wave."
Newton may have "toyed around with aetheric theories" and investigated
these theories with respect but I'd like to see an explicit reference
where Newton says that he believed or "regarded space as an almost
physical medium, a substance that allowed, for example, light to
propagate from one place to another."

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Uncle Al
2004-10-21 15:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
advertising
Post by jsp
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/index.html
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/tfotc.html#quantumissues
says
"Though invisible, Newton and other early scientists regarded space
as an almost physical medium, a substance that allowed, for example,
light to propagate from one place to another. Space was to light as
water was to a wave."
References please. I'm certain that Newton thought of light as a
particle.
Idiot, light is a wave - Poisson's spot, two slit diffraction.
Idiot, light is a particle - photelectric effect, pair formation.
Idiot, <www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/matterwave/c60/>
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Loading...