Close to absolute zero, particles exhibit their quantum nature
sciencebulletin.org
sciencebulletin.org
The quality of the videos is marginal, but the content is spectacular. I am not exaggerating or being metaphorical when I say my jaw dropped (open) while watching these.
I intend on reading the book soon: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5552.QED “QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter”
The explanation of why the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of refraction, or how and why oil makes such pretty colors when mixed in water was mind blowing.
Then this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ , for explanation.
No need to read long books.
I really like the pretty pictures from walking droplets, and it makes the thing seem very intuitive. But they're a little disingenuous. It's easy to imagine, or just see a drop of water bouncing in the air on a wave of water. But all this stuff happens in 3d. There's (as far as i know) no separation like air and water. It's more like a sound wave expanding out in all directions.
How do you surf on a sound wave? Not saying it can't be done, it's just that the pretty picture has to be a lot more complicated for the particle to have something to bounce off of. Maybe there are some weird hard thin shells that hover around particles. Who knows? For sure i can say 'not me'.
Moreover, electromagnetic waves are very different from sound waves, so physic process involving them will be very different. Can you imagine an experiment, which will be closer to reality?, e.g. spinning eccentric charged particles in space.
There is, broadly speaking, a consensus view. Whether this is because the consensus best matches reality or whether it's dogmatic is probably up for debate, but I don't personally know any professional scientists who believe pilot wave theory (Bell's theorem largely disproved it).
[1] http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115...
[2] http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115...
Occam's razor.
John Bell himself, the original author of one of the impossibility theorems, recognized its irrelevance, but he was systematically misquoted, misunderstood, or ignored as he tried to call attention to it. Ironically, he was then portrayed as being against Bohmian mechanics, despite the fact that he was its prime supporter during his lifetime.He said:
“But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer,’ could be eliminated…
But why then had Bohm not told me of this ‘pilot wave’?... Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing “impossibility” proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in textbooks? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?”
John S. Bell, "On the impossible pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982)
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/3py2d...
"Bohmian mechanics is an interpretation of quantum mechanics (other popular examples are the Copenhagen and the Many-World interpretation). They try to explain the origin of the weird behaviour of measurements in QM. The problem is that these interpetations don't actually make predictions, so you can't do an experiment that tells "Bohmian is right and Copenhagen is wrong". That's why physicists don't research a lot in this area, it is more at the boundary between physics and philosophy. Copenhagen is easy to understand, so in most cases that's being taught (despite its issues)."
The rest of the story as to why Bohmian mechanics is not currently favored as the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics can be traced back to orthodox philosophical intransigence. Those that fail to comprehend, or factor in, the ontological advantages that come from the determinism and mathematical clarity of Bohmian mechanics often attempt to downplay the formalism by pointing out that it “doesn’t make any predictions that differ from those of ordinary quantum mechanics.” Technically, that’s not much of an objection because we could equally argue that empirically “the standard theory doesn’t go beyond Bohm’s theory.”
http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/shut-up-and-calculate-3/
Whenever I read the texts of philosophers and see the "ontology" mentioned as argument, I just conclude "one more guy who wants to find the proof that his god exists." Or remain being paid for something close to the religious thinking which is not called so.
I enjoyed watching the videos with the drops jumping above the waves, it is nice and visual, but the things the physicists have to work with in QM still aren't drops but the measurements and the formulas. If you like to imagine the waves visually, you're free to do it, but it's still not physics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is
Feynman: "I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell."
Of course it matters. Your ontological beliefs define the questions you feel you're allowed to ask and the kinds of experiments you will design.
Copenhagen is just as much "at the boundary between physics and philosophy" as any other interpretation is.
The foundation of QT has been stuck for almost a century now. There's been a lot of detail filled in, but no truly fundamental movement towards answering the hard questions - what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms, and how do you get from QT to relativity and back again?
What's so terrible about supporting alternative views that may shed some light on those questions?
Physics is ontology. There is nothing else involved. If you're going to pretend the true nature of reality is either irrelevant to physics or is somehow mystically unknowable, you may as well stop doing science altogether.
However, current major theories are in stuck, they cannot explain what we see, because now we have more data. So it is better to look for something else, which will explain everything we know already and more.
But don't forget: Einstein didn't disprove Newton, Newton's formulas are just a good approximation under the circumstances that were easier for us to observe. So most of what we now know will also remain as a "set of simpler models", as it is based on the valid experiments.
I also don't feel frightened not knowing things, but now we know more than before. It's hard to imagine that particle must go through all slits and then God must play dice when you saw above video at least once.
General Relativity is based on assumption that speed of light is constant regardless of direction, and tests, done with 1E-17 accuracy, are proving that. But tests done with 1E-21 accuracy shows that speed of light is not constant, so whole theory was built on wrong assumption, but it still accurate to 1E-17, which is huge accuracy, much more than we need in practice.
About "light" claims: I'm talking about "non-null effect": http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0030v2.pdf .
The comment of his previous work:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1021214/pg134#pid1...
"I'm serious --- the writing appears to be that of a very intelligent schizophrenic who was trained in physics. It alternates between true statements and nonsense like rap rhymes. A key symptom is the various forms of "holistic fields" or what not that connect to DNA and brains --- this is part of the schizophrenics search for the origin of his internally-created hallucinations and delusions and feeling of "understanding the Universe"."
Regarding the paper you quote: it is... weird... and had he really found anything that would disprove the Michelson-Morley results (what he tries to claim between the lines) he'd already be famous and with his Nobel prize or just wait to get it.
You know "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? It appears he doesn't even know (or doesn't want to know) what the necessary evidence for his claims would be.
Is your name by any chance Stoyan Sargoytchev (or B.M. Quine)? If not, where have you even heard/read about that paper?
Edit: (the answer to the response) thanks for answering with "I used first link with keywords similar to what I expected to find. I read linked articles and they are crap, so let dismiss this paper. Sorry." Regarding your question: "Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary?" the answer is: no, it seems you don't understand the basics of physics -- that is, the issues that were known before Einstein and the way he solved them, making the testable predictions. As the Michelson–Morley experiment was performed around 130 years ago, and confirmed many times since, it's really a lot that you miss, so I'm not going to continue the discussion.
Article, I looking for, is about experiment conducted using Sagnac interferometer for more than year to detect deviations of predicted Sagnac effect, from Earth rotation, during year, from actual measurement. They tried to account everything they know and still had small anisotropic variations across year. I'm not able to find that article, so I will try to use LIGO observation of gravitational wave as argument.
Can you accept, after confirming of gravitational waves, that there is field, called „gravitational field“, which affects speed of light, at least temporary?
PS.
It's looks like we cannot continue discussion because of larger delays between posts, so just thanks you for your replies — they were helpful. I will try to prepare better for next time.
Speed of light will remain constant, no doubt, so observer need to be far away to feel difference, otherwise it will be affected by wave, with his instruments and clock. It's why 2-4km arms are able to pickup temporal signal, while smaller setups are able to pickup thermal noise only.
PS.
Not sure that I will survive for so long, because of war with Russia — next week will be hard for me. :-)
http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/179487/ukraine-removes-la...
Yep, it was not LIGO. LIGO uses Michelson inteferometer, while I'm looking for Sagnac interferometer results. As far as I remember, I started with that article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0401005v3.pdf , then started searching of articles about rotation sensing mentioned in the article. It looks like that it: http://porto.polito.it/2460498/1/G_GranSasso_18.pdf (or a newer paper).
I looked at FIG. 10: The rotation rate of the Earth measured with the G ring laser as a function of time. Averaging over 2 hours was applied to a corrected dataset, where all known geophysical signals have been removed
But their measurements were done with up to 1E-11 accuracy, which is just not enough, because (IMHO) signal will be 10-100x weaker than gravitational wave, so, IMHO, 1E-21 accuracy is required. So my comment, which started that discussion, is just wrong. :-(
About war: war is still here. We are switched to professional army (hence no new conscription) and situation is stable enough (1-7 killed, 3-15 injured every day). Crimea is still captured. Next week will be hard because I will have meeting with my killers. But, after 2 month of preparation, I forgot about one small but important detail, so I am basically unprepared now. Unfortunately, I cannot stop my play because I want to free Crimea next year, and lot of people are already involved, and contact with Russians is important in this case, so I will try to improvise, like before, when I was unprepared. I will delete that text tomorrow.
To develop intuition, first you must understand that we are not moving through space, we are propagating through space, because we are waves. Actually, nothing is moved, hence no drag between material objects and space.
I will use video above as example. If you measure speed of sound in water between waves around droplets, you will found that speed of sound is constant, regardless of speed of droplet, because water is not moving at all. Water is contracting and expanding in place. We can perceive «lower» speed of sound in water in case of really big waves, because distance to travel will increase slightly. This is how gravitational waves are caught. Otherwise we are out of luck: we are counting waves to measure distance and time, and that count is not changing when space contracts and expands.
So the only two solutions I see to prove that space is real thing, like water, using waves only, is to:
1) cool vacuum below 0K — cooled vacuum will have slightly different speed of light (someone in USA is already working on that, shortly after discussion about „frozen vacuum“ at HN ;-). It's possible to cool or heat water using acoustic, but we are propagating through space, so cooled vacuum will be left in place while we will propagate away. Hard task. Can be done in interstellar space if ship will be able to stand at same place, or if large enough setup will be used quickly.
2) measure tiny asymmetry of front vs back of pilot wave using Sagnac effect to show that there are small deviations between predicted values and actual values, which are varying over year, as direction of movement and our position in Solar system changes (Solar system already had that asymmetry as measured by Voyagers). I saw (or I think that I saw) paper with exactly that information: experiment with large Sagnac interferometer conducted for over year with high precision which was focused on these deviations, but I still cannot find it. :-(
So, WHY single particles are developing interference pattern when sent one by one?
Shut up and calculate is not an answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Copenha...
Just by looking at video, it's clear that interference pattern appears because of interference of particle wave with itself. It's also clear that speed of sound in water is constant regardless of speed of particle, particle cannot reach speed above speed of sound in water, speed of particle affects particle itself, and so on.
If the number of energy states of a system are reduced to very few of course the quantum mechanical effects will be more noticible since the "blurred" system that fakes continuity is no longer there to mislead.
But how could these "fields" in principle be observed with an instrument made out of atoms?