Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

[Razvan Asakura]

Originally Posted by moshe.

You must be on some type of crack cocaine to assert such an outlandish, widely refuted viewpoint in science as some sort of fact.

Here is a more concise way to look at the double-slit:



Read this as well: "On the wave function of the Photon"

http://www.cft.edu.pl/~birula/publ/APPPwf.pdf

Listen to Roy Glauber's Nobel Lecture here:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...r-lecture.html

All of which don't support your rather lay-man way of interpreting it.

You might not read those links so I will give you the gist in a sentence:

"Don't be an idiot, photon wave-amplitudes are interfering with one another to produce that wave like pattern you see."

Son, you clearly misinterpret quantum physics with math. If you like mathematics so much and claim to be such a genius at it, then stick with that and let the interpretations and experiments to people that actually know what they're talking about.

Judging from your posts, you're no Einstein and you obviously misunderstood my reply. In the double-slit there is a part where an observer is introduced in the same room as the experiment, THAT'S when the change occurs when he observes the action. Scientists said that it could be because of our conscious that has the impact on the matter. Or it could be something more complicated but at the very least we're the one's who make the change happen.

When the observer wasn't in the room, the patterns ended differently. Same experiment, different outcomes simply out of the fact that there was someone watching the action develop. I thought people who actually knew what I was talking about actually KNEW what I was talking about and that I didn't have to explain the phenomenon myself. And you're just repeating what the review said, you have no real insight on the matter.

I was simply stating a point based on that experiment that if we are actually the catalysts here, then without us existing in this time and place, then space itself could become very different than we know it now. But we can't say for sure if it's just us, or any other living thing, or only those with a conscious.

[snqrls]

soooo much flamin' goin' round on this thread... Very little compromise. It's like you all want to argue, well that said marshe just wants to be right.

oh yeah, they did an exeriment a while back with the uncertainty principle wherein they tried to test whether or not the uncertainty grew larger if they ran some test in the future. Apparently it did. This might have caused the scenario you describe in the double-slit experiment because it'd mean the future effected the past.

sry for the lack of detail, I wish I could add more. As to your original post I had first thought you were referring to young's experiment not something that happened much later.

[moshe.]

Judging from your posts, you're no Einstein and you obviously misunderstood my reply. In the double-slit there is a part where an observer is introduced in the same room as the experiment, THAT'S when the change occurs when he observes the action. Scientists said that it could be because of our conscious that has the impact on the matter. Or it could be something more complicated but at the very least we're the one's who make the change happen.

When the observer wasn't in the room, the patterns ended differently. Same experiment, different outcomes simply out of the fact that there was someone watching the action develop. I thought people who actually knew what I was talking about actually KNEW what I was talking about and that I didn't have to explain the phenomenon myself. And you're just repeating what the review said, you have no real insight on the matter.

I was simply stating a point based on that experiment that if we are actually the catalysts here, then without us existing in this time and place, then space itself could become very different than we know it now. But we can't say for sure if it's just us, or any other living thing, or only those with a conscious.

Just because I gave you one sentence on it just to make those links more concise, I have no real insight? :(

IN any-case, you know what? I will tell you a little something about the WONDROUS! double slit experiment. Anything observing would break the wave-pattern formation and cause the photons and e-s to act, well.... basically... not as a wave. It isn't consciousness that breaks the pattern but rather basic interference.

Take a camera, place it into a wall, then don't record the data, etc..., guess what? No wave-formation! *Mind-blown*

you might ask, "well moshe., how's that?"

Young-lad, take a seat, Moshe. will tell you a bit of information about a little phenomenon called decoherence to you.

Razvan, "wah dekkoocherenci?"

Moshe.: "Nooo, you cute little girl, decoherence, sound it out with me"

Moshe and Razvan: "dee-coo-her-ence"

Moshe.: "You got it young-lad!"

Moshe. explains briefly: "Let's use an example, I like examples... Say that we have this tiny world (or Universe), and it operates differently from our own. On one scale, when isolated from us, it acts in its usual patterns, but when we enter our little god-like fingers into the fray and observe it, we cause more order than less order or wave-like, groovy motions (photons/e-s lining up on one path), now let's walk away from this world we have observed, it will go back to its normal day-to-millenia stuff. How about we try something else, say heat this universe up a bit, what would we observe once we heat it whilst we not observing it in the process, but after the effect? .... No answer? Well, we'd observe the exact same phenomenon of the sub-atomic particles acting with more order than with less order or waves, that is, lining up in order.

This experiment was actually done and it is based upon fullerenes. IN this experiment the region where the particle was traveling was filllllllled with gas and, do you know how gas and particles work?

Say we are standing on oppposite ends of the room and I have some perfume, of course it would take some time for the scent to reach you because the particles from the perfume are interacting with the environment, same case but in a different sense with the fullerene. The fullerene's interaction with the gaseous particles located within the environment was sufficient enough to cause the wave-function of the e-s/photons to collapse and have them lining up as if they were being observed. That is not all though, guess what? In some experiments conducted, one could change the varying heat levels inside the isolated environment and cause the wave-formations to decrease from 1 to .5 to 0!"

Oh-ho-ho-hooo, ain't that a good early thanks-giving gift for ya? Or is it Christmas gift? Whatever, I believe in gifts on both holidays! We all win!

[jeuxaijin]

that's a cool story, but i want to know more about the speed-of-light sex change op

[snqrls]

@moshe: If true that's great, but why would the reaction with the fullerene get the particle wave to line up? Or the heat?

[moshe.]

I was a bit dense in my explanation. I'll try to be a bit neater this time around.

Q.1 : The fullerene was not alone, as it is the particle that is interacting with the gaseous particles within the experiment. I will use another example to explain it. Take two dogs, one a German Shepherd, the other an Alaskan Husky, they are dog buddies and live in a nice home. Now, let's say a home burglar always robs the same home, at a specific time. Are you still with me? If so, let's continue: The dogs, the German Shepherd (the fullerene) and the Alaskan Husky (the gas) are now playing with one another, basically play-fighting, well... usually when that thief takes his usual stroll in thievery type things (stealing from all over the home), the dogs are asleep, but this time they are play fighting all over the place, this causes the thief to be more apt to the situation and what his goals are, so he narrows his goal to a few items in one section of the home that way he can, get through, get out.

Hopefully that example was not too confusing in its explanation. Basically what I am saying is the action of the fullerene and the gas particles acting upon one another is enough cause to make the e-s act in a manner befitting what is observe when we, humans, try to peer through to see what the subatomic particles are doing.

Q.2: Ah... It was the case of another experiment that was conducted. The researchers shot fullerenes out of a laser and those same fullerenes emitted photons when being shot. The kicker here is that there were varying degrees of temperature of fullerene so the interference pattern that usually causes the wave-formation could have been decreased based on the heated fullerene.

Those two examples showcase enough interference to mess up (or cause) the interference pattern normally produced by the e-s to produce waves, to not produce them. Does that answer your question?

EDIT:

the speed-of-light

What about the speed do you want to know? Something faster than it? Well that is where the neutrino comes into play, they are, or have been detected to be faster than light in terms of subatomic particles. This basically broke what was previously known to be the fastest thing in this universe and made for the discovery of an even faster "thing"(sorry) in the universe other than light. (NOTE: there is still an opposition to FTL neutrinos and people are unsatisfied, so I am speaking strictly in regards to the experiment that tested it. But many have called for more measurements and tests that needs to be done by the way, especially for such a large claim. It is almost akin to saying God exists because you tested for the being and found traces of its existence). Just wanted to mention that.

You might not think of it as being something really interesting or, what's the point? Causality and a LOT of theories in science would need to be either revised or dropped as such a thing as FTL neutrinos would violate many theories.

Here is the research paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

I want to work at CERN one day though, but more than likely I will be working outside of a previous maintenance room, with burning pipes! :(

[Fatstogey]

Originally Posted by snqrls

I don't know, if you rid yourself of a relevent time-scale the radio-wasn't invented either, it's always been and will always exist. If you consider that the radio (with all it's components) is just an idea, what's really been invented is a concept.

So can you invent ideas? I know it's a silly question, but it's what it comes down to.

Anyways, has it occured to you that this is a matter of semanticks...?

No its a matter of fact. Just that homeboy is too dumb in thinking he knows it all to pull his head out of his own asshole and observe teh world around him.

Which is funny cause he loves math. Which is observation of patterns occuring in reality. Yet hes totally disconnected from that which he claims as his expertise.

Idk hes so dumb i dont even know if i can read his shit.


I dont know shit about math. But what i do know? We didnt invent it. We discovered it.

Pythagorean theorem? It exists on other planets too, and is called something different. ON another world its "Larry's theorem."


We DID NOT invent it. If anything its significant of intelligent design. Math are patterns existing in reality. The programming language of reality.

Learned by us. Not created by us. Dumbness.


And what math is his expertise? And he dont even know the most basic fact about it? Sad state.

[moshe.]

I may or may not be dumb, but that doesn't really matter here.

I know from what I have learned from all these years I have lived on this Earth. Whether it is a lot or very little is of no concern to me as what I know I can apply through various methods and means. The other stuff on how much knowledge it is in the context of "knowing" is irrelevant to what I am studying and applying.

Discovery of patterns within the universe, and the invention of a method (called math) to describe those patterns. I have stated that point in a rather lament-like fashion. I even went a step further to provide an example, but there is a nice proverb from the Bible that I absolutely love even though I don't ascribe to any religious institution but here it goes, "Wisdom rests in the heart of him who has understanding, but what is in the heart of fools is made known. " And, you sir, aren't wise when it comes to this topic.

Where is the ample amount of substance, the meat? There is none, just a tiring and rather sub-par effort to undercut me with a petty insult.

There is no how, there is no why, there isn't even reason within your own post to account for its validity. "Look around" is as lame as it is vague in detail.

[quote]Pythagorean theorem? It exists on other planets too, and is called something different. ON another world its "Larry's theorem."[quote]

The number "2" is an idea derived by humans.

[Fatstogey]

Originally Posted by moshe.

I may or may not be dumb, but that doesn't really matter here.

May

I know from what I have learned from all these years I have lived on this Earth. Whether it is a lot or very little is of no concern to me as what I know I can apply through various methods and means. The other stuff on how much knowledge it is in the context of "knowing" is irrelevant to what I am studying and applying.

Nothing. And just earth? Shit you better expand your lifetimes.

Discovery of patterns within the universe, and the invention of a method (called math) to describe those patterns.

So then objects arent inventions, only the names of them? Interesting concept.

I have stated that point in a rather lament-like fashion. I even went a step further to provide an example, but there is a nice proverb from the Bible that I absolutely love even though I don't ascribe to any religious institution but here it goes, "Wisdom rests in the heart of him who has understanding, but what is in the heart of fools is made known. " And, you sir, aren't wise when it comes to this topic.

Dont take quotes form other people. Those who are great create their own quotes. Not merely walk int eh footsteps of those inferior beings who came before him.
Wisdom is in he who doesnt quote stupid shit about wisdom, but speaks for his own.

Quote that next time.

Where is the ample amount of substance, the meat? There is none, just a tiring and rather sub-par effort to undercut me with a petty insult.

Par? Nigga i threw up an eagle as you were being a pompous douche and now wanna argue that the name is actually the invention.
You didnt invent shit. You follow. Dont mistake yourself for a god such as myself as you merely follow the example set for you. Its not petty insult. Its reality.

Recognizing the pattern first is great. Being some jackass who follows and imitates that guy? Isnt divine at all. Just a guy following what someone else did. NOt even recognizing the pattern on his own. Merely being trained. Then claiming some sort of superiority.

There is no how, there is no why, there isn't even reason within your own post to account for its validity. "Look around" is as lame as it is vague in detail.

There is reason within everything that exists. Look around is saying that your blind. Because you are. Its why you cant see reason.

[quote]Pythagorean theorem? It exists on other planets too, and is called something different. ON another world its "Larry's theorem."

The number "2" is an idea derived by humans.

No it isnt. The number 2 is a universal law. The label 2 is a label sure. But this is about the lowest form of semantics one could hope to stoop to. Congratulations cause your mathematical genius doesnt translate to the written word, you could come up with more than this to argue about if it did.
I think your too busy inventing new math.

The label of the number 2 is decided by man. The "idea" of 2 is a universal law. Decided by none other than jesus himself. Observed by you. Labeled by you. Law to you.

I wanted to think you were beefheart, but this is sub par for him.

[snqrls]

Okay, I was wrong. I thought this was about abstraction and the like, clearly I scanned over one too many posts.

But are we seriously debating whether a language was invented!? That's just silly. Thing is, you can use a non base-10 number system and still be consistent. It's not a 1:1 relationship, just because it comes from observation doesn't mean that it's the only relatable format.