unifying gravity and electromagnetism

[Tubbythin]

"So this electron cloud when shot, is likely to travel through both the slits simultaneously and how much of the cloud goes through each slit depends on the size of the cloud, the distance between the slits and the direction it is shot"

Interference pattern results even when the electrons are fired one after the other because it travels simultaneously through both the slits and where each electron lands depends on the postion of the electron in its cloud.

Does your website say:

When many electrons are shot at once, all will travel in the same way as above but the particle clouds/ virtual particles of different electrons can interact with their neighbors’ and hence can influence the position of the neighboring ‘real electrons’. This influence of particle clouds on one another can result in the interference pattern observed in the
two slit experiment.

Yes or no?

Did you or did you not post something similar earlier in this thread? Yes or no?

Did you or did you not say you were going to...

repeat the double slit explanation here to receive your venomous comments

Yes or no?

 

[MRC_Hans]

*Silly insults ignored, but noted*

Now I return to the twin flight experiment-

On time dilation, I quote from the book ‘The universe in a nutshell’ written by Stephen Hawking- (so resist from throwing your venomous comments on this bit, I will give you the chance later)

“This has been confirmed by a number of experiments, including one in which two accurate clocks were flown in opposite directions around the world and returned showing slightly different times”

“The clock in the aircraft flying toward the west records more time than its twin travelling in the opposite direction”

“The time for passengers in the aircraft flying toward the east is less than that for those in the aircraft flying toward the west”

All correct. Note however that you need pretty advanced instruments to notice this difference.

So the west bound aircraft records more time than the east bound one.

Yes, YES! Bravo, you got it. Keep up the good work!

We can straight away discard the idea of constant speed of light using the same twin flight experiment.

Ahh, well. Just as you were doing so good. Well, you can't win them all.

Imagine that a beam of light with velocity ‘C’ is shone towards the west. A west bound flight with a velocity ‘0.2C’ will measure the velocity of light as only ‘0.8C’ unless its time gets dilated (runs slower). Similarly the east bound flight with a velocity ‘0.2C’ will measure the speed of light as ‘1.2C’ unless its time runs faster. But we know that this was not the case from the above experiment.

Uhh, deja vu, here? No you already posted this once. Why do you post it again?

OK, let's take it from here. Your explanation, above actually shows that the speed of light IS constant, because time does thick slower on that plane.

So, what exactly is your point?

“An electron is apparently surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. Virtual particles are particle/ antiparticle pairs (electrons/ positrons) that get created from the ‘vacuum’ and disappear by annihilating each other.

If this picture is true, the created particle/ antiparticle pairs may not adhere to and behave with sanctity and it is possible that the original electron may get annihilated by one of the virtual positrons created ‘next’ to it. So the position of the ‘real electron’ keeps changing in the cloud and we may feel that its exact position is unpredictable. This unpredictability is more to do with our ignorance and not to be considered as a fundamental character of the particle.

So this electron cloud when shot, is likely to travel through both the slits simultaneously and how much of the cloud goes through each slit depends on the size of the cloud, the distance between the slits and the direction it is shot”

Uhm... didn't you notice the reply you got from Tubbythin?

As I explained quite clearly before... Your suggestion is nonsense because the interference pattern still appears when only 1 electron is fired at a time.

Are you in a habit of just repeating the same claims and ignoring the answers? This (and your other habit of insulting people) might explain why you are met with a certain portion of venom.

But you know, all things can be tweaked to resemble the truth: Your cloud of particles and antiparticles, which must be massless, could, if we are sufficiently charitable, be interpreted as a waveform. And, lo and behold, if we treat the electron as a wave, the pattern from the double-slit suddenly makes sense. Even for single electrons. We call this the particle/wave duality. If you had been half a century earlier, and had actually known what you were talking about, there might have been a Nobel for you.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The main difficulty was how can an electron travel through both the slits simultaneously. If this can be explained, the interference problem will be solved automatically.

It can be explained. The electron behaves like a waveform.

Hans

 

[Dancing David]

"So this electron cloud when shot, is likely to travel through both the slits simultaneously and how much of the cloud goes through each slit depends on the size of the cloud, the distance between the slits and the direction it is shot"

Interference pattern results even when the electrons are fired one after the other because it travels simultaneously through both the slits and where each electron lands depends on the postion of the electron in its cloud.

So what exactly are you quoting here?

This?
http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-wonders-of-the-quantum-world

Pop science is not a good place to start

 

[Dancing David]

The main difficulty was how can an electron travel through both the slits simultaneously. If this can be explained, the interference problem will be solved automatically.

Here is a hint: waveform

 

[Loss Leader]

I suppose you can’t recognise the face of your spouse and others without weird maths written on their face.

Why do you discount the possibility that a person is doing complex mathematical work subconsciously or unconsciously. People are very good at recognizing faces. We know that there are certain ratios that create a pleasant or unpleasant looking face. Why do you believe that people are not evaluating these ratios in their heads?

Simply because we aren't sitting with pen and paper doesn't mean we aren't doing math. A fielder can catch a fly ball without stopping to write out a calculus equation to plot its trajectory. Yet, the fielder still makes the catch. He has plotted the trajectory. He has done the calculus without even knowing it.

Logic is the basis of all maths simple or complex, though maths does facilitate our reasoning in complex scenarios.
If numbers are superior to reasoning, a computer or robot must be a better creature than you all.

Do you know you contradict yourself here? You say that math is based on logic and reasoning. Then you imply that there's an argument that math is better than logic or reasoning.

Nobody is arguing that math is superior to reasoning. Math IS reasoning. You say so yourself. Thus, any thinking backed up by math is guaranteed to have some level of logic and reasoning to it. Any thinking not backed up by math can't make that guarantee.

Also, you appear to assume that a computer or robot knows what to calculate, not just how to do so.

Last, you imply that it is wrong to believe that computers and robots are better than we are. There is no reason for this to be the case. I may not like robots (one of them owes me ten dollars), but I have no problem admitting that there are many, many things they can do better than I - build a car, work in poisonous environments, pleasure a woman, etc.

We can straight away discard the idea of constant speed of light using the same twin flight experiment.

No, we can't. You are wrong.

 

[Philosaur]

Last, you imply that it is wrong to believe that computers and robots are better than we are. There is no reason for this to be the case. I may not like robots (one of them owes me ten dollars), but I have no problem admitting that there are many, many things they can do better than I - build a car, work in poisonous environments, pleasure a woman, etc.

I'm tempted to make this my sig.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The main difficulty was how can an electron travel through both the slits simultaneously. If this can be explained, the interference problem will be solved automatically.

Already done here and here.

 

[drgsrinivas]

So you all believe that Robots are better than humans?

Your madness won! Congratulations! I bow to thee! Ignorance has no limit but knowledge has.

Mr Randi must be shameful to have a crowd like you.

 

[drgsrinivas]

It can be explained. The electron behaves like a waveform.

Hans

waves don't need your 'bull-slits' to travel, they can travel even without them.

 

[drgsrinivas]

Does your website say:

Yes or no?

Did you or did you not post something similar earlier in this thread? Yes or no?

Did you or did you not say you were going to...

Yes or no?

Well, explanations will be given depending on the ignorance of the audience.

 

[Cuddles]

So you all believe that Robots are better than humans?

Your madness won! Congratulations! I bow to thee!

It's the robots you should be bowing to.

 

[Mashuna]

It's the robots you should be bowing to.

I, for one, welcome our etc...

 

[Hellbound]

*Hellbound walks in leading two horses.*

Don't mind me. The boys wuz just hungry. Seein' y'all have an abundance in this har thread, Ah figgered ya wuldn't mind 'em snappin' up a bit.

 

[Philosaur]

So you all believe that Robots are better than humans?

Your madness won! Congratulations! I bow to thee! Ignorance has no limit but knowledge has.

Mr Randi must be shameful to have a crowd like you.

Why are you still here? Did all the intelligent and educated people in India get bored with your addlepated rambling?

 

[Dancing David]

So you all believe that Robots are better than humans?

Your madness won! Congratulations! I bow to thee! Ignorance has no limit but knowledge has.

Mr Randi must be shameful to have a crowd like you.

So if you were a biochemical robot you would think you were human?

But you would be a p-zombie?

 

[dlorde]

So you all believe that Robots are better than humans?
...
Mr Randi must be shameful to have a crowd like you.

Wow, you must have put as much thought into that as into your 'theory'.

Your own presence here clearly indicates that it is a public forum that anyone can join, and so no one poster can speak for or represent the forum - any more than you yourself can; and Mr Randi can think what he likes about it.

It is also worth bearing in mind that, in a public forum, the whole world can see you making a fool of yourself, and if not the whole world, there are many who read but don't post here.

As a one-time general and laparoscopic surgeon now specializing in homeopathy, you should ask yourself if you really do have the knowledge and experience to challenge the work of the thousands of people who have devoted their careers to discovering the physics you so casually dismiss? Really?

 

[drgsrinivas]

Why do you discount the possibility that a person is doing complex mathematical work subconsciously or unconsciously. People are very good at recognizing faces. We know that there are certain ratios that create a pleasant or unpleasant looking face. Why do you believe that people are not evaluating these ratios in their heads?

That’s what is called reasoning. If you call this subconscious processing as maths, I have no objection (As it ultimately boils down to the binary system of simple yes or no). But then why are you ignoring this compex subconscious maths in favour of just weird numbers.

[/QUOTE]Do you know you contradict yourself here? You say that math is based on logic and reasoning. Then you imply that there's an argument that math is better than logic or reasoning.[/QUOTE]

‘Fecilitate’ doesn’t mean superior or better. If you think so, then sticks, spectacles and hearing aids must be better than your legs, eyes and ears!

 

[drgsrinivas]

I beg to differ.


I can find no evidence for the existence of a "Sri Krishna Hospital" in Narasaraopet.

Virtual world is not everything. Not even a miniscule of the world is represented in the computer world. Even if the Google Earth manages to show the details of the brick work of your home, it wouldn't be able to show what is there in your bed room or bath room. It goes on---

 

[drgsrinivas]

We know this was not the case because it was a different experiment. Different experiments that measure different answers. All experiments that have measured the speed of light in vacuum (directly or indirectly) get the same speed, c.

Like many here, you are blessed with ignorance and I don’t think I can drive that of you but I will try.

If some mass weighs 6kg on earth and only 1kg on moon, we wouldn’t say that the mass is ‘shrunken’ and hence mass is a relative thing. We know that weighing machines get affected by gravity. It is nothing to do with accuracy of the machine.

Likewise, if a clock measures 60 seconds on earth, it may measure more seconds on moon for the same duration. It doesn’t mean that the time has actually dilated but it is due the fact the clock gets affected by gravity. One may introduce something like ‘timeness’ (analogous to ‘weight’) to account for the measured difference in time (analogous to mass).

When electromagnetic radiation can get affected by gravity, why not the atomic clocks?

Of course, it is not easy to convince people to get rid of the ‘deep rooted’ scientific beliefs (like the case with religious beliefs!)

To quote again Stephen Hawking, whom I consider as my virtual teacher in cosmology,
“Any physical theory is provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” (A Brief History of Time)

My thought experiment, whose predictions go against the notion of constant speed of light, is open to interpretation by anybody and needs only minimum sense of logic.

It shouldn’t make Einstein any less. I don’t dare to discredit this great personality.

Though Einstein’s theory of general relativity proved Newton wrong, Newton’s theory still holds true in the vast majority of situations. Einstein’s theory helped us understand the universe better and helped us move forward in Science. But this wouldn’t have been possible without the Newton’s theory.

If we insist that Einstein’s theory is the ultimate and nothing beyond to think, out of our love and attachment to this great personality, then science becomes a religion.

(After all this, don’t come and ask like a child “Did you mention all this on your original post?--- Yes or No?”)