Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: As a simplistic example, relativistic physics doesn't make Newtonian physics "wrong", discard it or revise it, Newton just becomes a subset, a special case where if velocity is much, much smaller than c, the effects of velocity can be ignored. As an earlier simplistic example, the four elements of fire, earth, air, and water are not all the elements that exist although one might rationalize that those four elements are a subset of the periodic table of the elements. Except no one ever did experiments to prove the hypothesis that fire, earth, air, and water were elements, so it remained a hypothesis until experiments were conducted to define elements, at which time the hypothesis was discarded. Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't. You do know the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis, don't you? Forcing boundary conditions on existing "laws of physics" doesn't make things like Newtonian physics any more accurate. It just makes some of us human beings feel better about our sacred cows. :-) Nonsense, it is just reality. Everything has boundary conditions, except maybe your proclivity to try and stir the pot. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't. Quoted from: ************************************************** ******** Ask A Scientist - General Science Archive ---------------------------------------------------------- Theories Proven Wrong Question - Where can I find information on theories that were proven wrong? --------------------------------------- Answer: Rumor has it that "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science" by Martin Gardner is just what your looking for. Every scientific theory is wrong in some respect. There is no scientific theory of "everything". ************************************************** ******** Apples and oranges. A "scientific theory of everything" is meaningless babble thrown around by the clueless. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework - derived from a small set of basic principles (usually symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc) - which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. Note the words "a given category of physical systems". As for the "aether", no observations that are predictive, logical or testable except in the negative. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: A "scientific theory of everything" is meaningless babble thrown around by the clueless. Is that your theory? :-) Such "meaningless babble" was quoted from an "Ask a Scientist" web page. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted from Webster's). That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it. Why do you insist on playing these silly games? snip remaining word games -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have
"communications"? 2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed greater than the speed of light. If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous and rich. John, N9JG "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... [snip] One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light yet the communications between entangled particles obviously travels faster than the speed of light. [snip] 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "John, N9JG" wrote in message et... 1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have "communications"? 2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed greater than the speed of light. If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous and rich. John, N9JG "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... [snip] One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light yet the communications between entangled particles obviously travels faster than the speed of light. [snip] 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com John & Cecil Extract from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/newtech2.html The Chiao Group at Berkeley is investigating superluminality. Ryan Frewin, Renee George, Deborah Paulson have a web page about superluminality, in which they say: "... About ten years ago, Steven Chu and Stephen Wong at AT&T Bell Labs in New Jersey measured superluminal velocities for light pulses traveling through an absorbing material ... In 1991, Anedio Ranfagni et al at the National Institute for Research into Electromagnetic Waves in Florence, Italy measured the speed of propagation for microwaves through a "forbidden zone" inside square metal w aveguides. The reported values were initially less than the speed of light, until the experiment was repeated in 1992 with thicker barriers ... Also in 1992, Gunter Nimtz and colleagues at the University of Cologne reported superluminal speeds for microwaves traversing a similar forbidden region ... In 1993, the most solid experimental evidence came from Chiao and his colleagues Aephraim Steinberg and Paul Kwiat at the University of California at Berkeley. Using the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer ... they were able to measure the tunneling times of visible light. According to Brown, "the researchers found that the photons that tunneled their way through the optical filter arrived 1.5 femtoseconds sooner than the ones that traveled through air. The tunneling photons seemed to have traveled at 1.7 times the speed of light" ... Similar experiments by Ferenc Krauss et al at the Technical University in Vienna in October of 1994 "strongly suggest that as they progressively increased the thickness of the barrier the tunneling time saturated toward a maximum value" ... In March of 1995, at a colloquium in Snowbird, Utah, Nimtz announced that he had sent a signal across twelve centimeters of space at 4.7 times the speed of light . The signal was a modulation in the frequency of his microwave source matching Mozart's 40th Symphony ... Even Chiao and his colleagues were adamantly opposed to describing Nimtz' work as the sending of a signal .... Why was the bar of Mozart's symphony not a signal? ... If a wave packet's shape upon incidence is smooth and well- defined, it is a straightforward calculation to determine its shape after transmission. Because the final shape can be mathematically determined ... most scientists would not consider a smoothly varying function to be a signal. ... Chiao and Steinberg were quick to point out that Nimtz' symphony was not a signal, but simply a smoothly varying pulse. .. A sudden change in the shape would still travel at only light speed, and only a sudden change, according to Chiao, could be regarded as a signal ... ". Clearly some things do appear to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The jury appears to be out as to whether any practical use can be made of the phenomenon. Mike G0ULI |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
John, N9JG wrote:
1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have "communications"? 2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed greater than the speed of light. Already answered from another posting: "Those particles are communicating faster than light but there is no information flow (yet)." IMO, it is only a matter of time and effort before we figure out how to modulate entangled particles. After all, it took ~250,000 years for us to figure out how to modulate EM waves. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
WA3MOJ crahses and Burns!!! | CB |