Jump to content
Science Forums

OceanBreeze

Moderators
  • Content Count

    1,505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    108

Reputation Activity

  1. Sad
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from write4u in Climate Change Irrelevant   
    India giving equal rights to the Ganges is a joke. They should be giving it the “Last Rights”, considering how polluted it is.

    “The Ganges River, a holy river that was once pure Himalayan Mountain water has turned into a slimy monstrosity. If we were to look at any other river in the world, the Ganges would be the most polluted by quite the margin.”
  2. Like
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Omnifarious in Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?   
    Hello Exchemist. Normally I would be very pleased to see you posting again on this forum. But in this case, I have to say that dropping in just to post something negative about another member is bad form. What drives you to do that when I know you are capable of so much better?
  3. Like
    OceanBreeze reacted to AnssiH in A simple local realist interpretation of quantum physics   
    Yeah, good point. I momentarily overcame my laziness, improved the abstract, and copied it to the OP with a short summary 😊
    Thank you, I had not seen this paper before. I read it and quite agree with the sentiment. And it's also always fun to read more detailed historical accounts of the development of some physics concepts. Always serves as a nice reminder how these concepts really are sociological constructs - with different order of discoveries, the common paradigms for modeling things would look different in details that many people just assume to be "proven by a theory".
    For me the biggest quantum mystery right now is, who do people still insist on using the concept of photons. Observations of discrete energy steps are always cited as proof of photons, even in very reputable sources, which just seems incredibly silly to me. All observations are reactions of a piece of matter - why extend that observation to the idea of "free photons", especially when the same people recognize what a headache that extension is.
    I guess many people have just decided that it's impossible to understand quantum mechanics intuitively, so we shouldn't even try. I beg to differ.
    "Only a comedy of errors and historical accidents led to its popularity among physicists and optical scientists." is incredibly apt description. When I'm thinking of QM in terms of my interpretation, and I watch or read descriptions of quantum systems, I can see how that comedy keeps on giving. So many times I watch someone describe a quantum system completely with a wave equation, and saying "so this all makes perfect sense so far. But when I add photons into this picture it becomes a complete headache". All I can think of is - WELL THEN DON'T! 😅
    -Anssi
  4. Like
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from AnssiH in A simple local realist interpretation of quantum physics   
    Thanks for the link, however it would be best to at least give an abstract and summary of your paper, along with the link so that a meaningful discussion can take place.
    For example, I have recently been reading this paper, by W.E. Lamb, that seems to cover some of the same ground that you are attempting to cover, but in much greater detail. Not being lazy,☺️ I here provide the link, the abstract and the summary, but it is far more enlightening to read the entire paper.
    Anti-photon
    W.E. Lamb, Jr.
    Optical Sciences Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
    Received: 23 July 1994/Accepted: 18 September 1994
     
    Abstract.
    It should be apparent from the title of this article that the author does not like the use of the word "photon", which dates from 1926. In his view, there is no such thing as a photon. Only a comedy of errors and historical accidents led to its popularity among physicists and optical scientists. I admit that the word is short and convenient. Its use is also habit forming. Similarly, one might find it convenient to speak of the "aether" or "vacuum" to stand for empty space, even if no such thing existed.
    There are very good substitute words for "photon", (e.g., "radiation" or "light"), and for "photonics" (e.g., "optics" or "quantum optics"). Similar objections are possible to use of the word "phonon", which dates from 1932. Objects like electrons, neutrinos of finite rest mass, or helium atoms can, under suitable conditions, be considered to be particles, since their theories then have viable non-relativistic and non-quantum limits. This paper outlines the main features of the quantum theory of radiation and indicates how they can be used to treat problems in quantum optics.
     
    8 Winding down
    There is a lot to talk about the wave-particle duality in discussion of quantum mechanics. This may be necessary for those who are unwilling or unable to acquire an understanding of the theory. However, this concept is even more pointlessly introduced in discussions of problems in the quantum theory or radiation. Here the normal mode waves of a purely classical electrodynamics appear, and for each normal mode there is an equivalent pseudosimple harmonic-oscillator particle which may then havea wave function whose argument is the corresponding normal-mode amplitude. Note that the particle is not a photon.
    One might rather think of a multiplicity of two distinct wave concepts and a particle concept for each normal mode of the radiation field. However, such concepts are really not useful or appropriate. The "Complementarity Principle" and the notion of wave-particle duality were introduced by N. Bohr in 1927. They reflect the fact that he mostly dealt with theoretical and philosophical concepts, and left the detailed work to postdoctoral assistants. It is very likely that Bohr never, by himself, made a significant quantum-mechanical calculation after the formulation of quantum mechanics in 1925-1926.
    9 Summary
    It is high time to give up the use of the word "photon", and of a bad concept which will shortly be a century old. Radiation does not consist of particles, and the classical, i.e., non-quantum, limit of QTR is described by Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic fields, which do not involve particles. Talking about radiation in terms of particles is like using such ubiquitous phrases as "You know" or "I mean" which are very much to be heard in some cultures. For a friend of Charlie Brown, it might serve as a kind of security blanket.
  5. Like
    OceanBreeze reacted to AnssiH in A simple local realist interpretation of quantum physics   
    Here's a view of quantum mechanics that I've been thinking about a bit in the past. I think it's easily powerful enough to be useful for others too. And to be honest, if you start viewing things through this interpretation, it can become a "bit" frustrating to see people over-complicate QM for themselves, and make it all seem more mysterious than it needs to be.
    I have never heard anyone use this type of interpretation, so I presume it is somewhat novel approach - despite being so incredibly simple, and almost "too obvious to miss". And yes, I understand the gravity of the claim of solving Bell experiments with local realist model, but what can I say... There really doesn't seem to be any obstacles to that. Of course it is always possible that I'm overlooking something, but it's a bit hard to imagine what that might be, being that I'm basically just putting together concepts that already exist elsewhere in our physical models.
    I typed my thoughts in Google Docs, and because I'm a bit lazy, here's just a link to a PDF export:
    The Quantum Absorption interpretation:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/mv7a2tbzicobeyo/Simple local realist interpretation of quantum mechanics.pdf?dl=0
    ---
    ABSTRACT

    The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how all of Quantum Mechanics can be explained by the simple idea that electromagnetic energy propagates purely as waves, while matter can only absorb energy in discrete quantities. The limitation that matter can only absorb discrete quantities of energy is already assumed to be true in many models of modern physics. Thus the concept of “photons'' appears to be redundant. Assuming only absorption quanta instead of photon quanta can easily explain many otherwise mysterious aspects of Quantum theory. It explains the apparent probabilistic nature of Quantum mechanics. It explains the behavior of polarization filters. It explains the frequency dependence of electromagnetic energy. It explains “virtual particles” without any particles. It explains the seemingly implausible “photon“ detection correlations of Bell experiments without any photons, and thus it solves the original EPR paradox. It does all this within a deterministic local realist framework.
    ---
    To summarize the argument in few key points:
    Quantum of energy absorption from continuous wave energy would look identical to photon detections at low energy levels. Any unabsorbed excess energies would continue to exist as waves. That leads into constant low energy noise of wave energy across the universe, that is not directly observable but would still interfere with our experiments, making detection events appear probabilistic. Combining pure wave mechanics to the information transfer, and combining that with the probabilistic detection events, can trivially solve the entire mystery of wave-particle duality. For example, the expectation from Bell Experiments becomes purely cosine correlation between detection events - just as experiments show - even when the energy levels are low enough for detection events to occur sparsely.
    Enjoy, discuss, let me know your thoughts.
    -Anssi
  6. Thanks
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Evolute in Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?   
    That’s a great attitude to have. I also try my best to learn at least one new bit of information every day with varying degrees of success. If I didn’t say this before, welcome to Hypography Science Forum and I hope you have a good experience here.
     
     
    To answer your question: we are not comparing an electron vs a photon. We are comparing two different proposed standards of measurement of the supposed smallest possible units of time and space. One standard is based on the Planck length and Planck time and the other is based on the time it takes for light to transit the diameter of particles such as the electron and proton, which is called the chronon.
    But unlike the Planck time, the chronon is not a fixed time interval but depends on the particular particle being considered, as the particle charge and mass plays a role in determining the value of the chronon. I find it to be a strange system since the chronon will have different values for different particles.
  7. Like
    OceanBreeze reacted to Evolute in Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?   
    Thank you for the correction, OceanBreeze. Never to old to learn something, and never to old to admit an error 🙂 
    So are we talking about an electron vs. a photon? A photon being what gets emitted when an electron experiences a change in energy level?
  8. Like
    OceanBreeze reacted to Omnifarious in Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?   
    True, photons are smaller then photoreceptors but only when they are sufficiently stimulated they send a signal to the brain. The nature of that signal is what I'm talking about.
    Actually I posted a question like that on this forum and several people said that spectrum in continuous. As have several other discussions I've found.
    Does Quantum Mechanics Mean There Is A Finite Number Of Colours? - Physics and Mathematics - Science Forums
    If you are saying the Planck length is a minimum length for everything, it is not. Planck is a unit of measurement like meters or inches, it too is divisible. 
    I never ment to ask, could see them all at once? But rather, assuming an infinite number of images can be created, would it be possible for humans to properly perceive any one out of them? Or at some point would there be variations we could not perceive?
    And you're statement "there is not a infinite amount of information contained within the universe" is not scientific fact either. Despite popular misconception, scientists do not agree on the shape or nature of the universe. Some say it's a globe, a cone, flat, infinite, finite, and one of many either in other dimensions or physically separate from ours. So you really shouldn't go around saying that like it's an established fact.
  9. Like
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Omnifarious in Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?   
    Your Question: “Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?”
     
    You requested a Yes or No response and, in my opinion, the answer is No.
    In case you are interested in my reasoning, on which I based my opinion, then read further.
    I don’t even need to bring different shades of colors into this, all I need to support my answer is the fact that the set of irregular polygons is infinitely large. I could also mention fractals, such as the Koch snowflake. I don’t think the human eye is limited in seeing any number of these shapes so theoretically it can see an infinite number of them; although it is always dodgy to speak of an infinite number of anything. How many is infinite anyway?
    Now, if I also add in the possibly infinite spectrum of colors and shades we may be able to see, we will arrive at different numbers of infinite sets; the very thing that drove poor Georg Ferdinand Ludwig Philipp Cantor into deep depression and repeatedly confined to various sanatoria, where he died in 1918.
    You may want to read up on his life since you seem to have some sort of obsession with the existence, or rather nonexistence, of an infinity or infinities, and admit to suffering depression as a result of that.
    Perhaps you can find some solace in the fact that, although Cantor’s set theory was considered laughable during much of his lifetime, the Royal Society awarded him its Sylvester Medal, the highest honor it can confer for work in mathematics, and today Cantor's work is considered to have great mathematical, as well as philosophical, importance.
  10. Like
    OceanBreeze reacted to write4u in Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?   
    Ok, I'll give it my last shot, being as there is no YES or NO answer. It is both KINDA and KINDA NOT.
    The eye has individual photoreceptors that are akin to pixels. There are 125 million of them in each eye - roughly ten times the number of pixels found in a smart phone camera.

    Ziess microscopy   Photo Credit: Flickr
    Information from these photoreceptors is shuttled to the deeper recesses of the brain through the optic nerve. And here's where the story gets interesting. The optic nerve is small and slow - a bottleneck for the flow of information. If we took a single photo from a smart phone and transmitted its data file through the optic nerve, it would take about two seconds to reach the brain. One snapshot, two seconds. How can that be? We certainly see more than a snapshot every couple of seconds.

    The left optic nerve and the optic tracts   Photo Credit: Wikimedia
    The short answer is that the eyes don't transmit visual images to the brain in the form of pictures. They can't. The bandwidth just isn't there. The eyes are somehow efficiently cherry picking and repackaging the visual data, and they're doing so in such a way that, when other parts of our brains receive it, our perception of the world is the smooth, continuous visual flow we're all familiar with. "This is one of the wonders of the brain," writes Quiroga, "one of the many mysteries that keep us neuroscientists up at night." 
     
  11. Like
    OceanBreeze reacted to Rasti in Hello There.........   
    So yeah my real name is Jake. I work at a Japanese steakhouse as a hibachi chef,
    but also as a skilled tradesman and a researcher in the fields of sociology and
    criminology. My hobbies also include hiking, biking, motorsports, mechanic work,
    engineering, carpentry, computer troubleshooting and repairs, networking, PHP/SQL,
    survival training and preparedness, camping, canning, baking and about a thousand other things.

    My motto in life is "Well, it could be worse" and "That won't buff out."

    Although my degrees are in Sociology, Criminology and Computer IT, I have a severe lust for
    ALL knowledge whether its knitting pink socks or it's impulse jets for external thruster design.
    You might find me reading about discrimination or about the distinction between Quartz,
    Cubic Zirconium and Diamonds. As likely to spend a whole weekend drinking and playing
    EVE Online as I am to spend it rebuilding an engine or making lasagna.

    My ultimate goal in life is to do all I can to help those who are the least advantaged of us. So, 
    felons, the poor, the mentally challenged, the disabled, etc., to be able to stand on their own
    and be self sustaining. (Thus the degrees in SOC and CRIM, and the skilled tradesman career).

    Although I can be quite abrasive to some people (mostly just bullies and idiots), I am generally speaking,
    A nice guy. 


    So that's me. 🙂
  12. Like
    OceanBreeze reacted to CountryBoy in E=mcc (again....)   
    It doesn't "go" anywhere.  It just stays right where it was. "[tex]E= mc^2[/tex]"  is all the energy contained in matter including the energy that holds the atoms and even nuclei and protons and neutrons together.  "Chemical means", such as burning, only releases the energy holding molecules together.  In atomic bombs, the energy holding the nuclei together is release but the "deeper" energy, holding the protons and neutrons together, is not.
  13. Haha
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Rasti in Physics Puzzle!   
    Welcome to Hypography Science Forums, Rasti. I hope you will find some more interesting threads to get involved in.
    But, this particular thread is nonsense and I am moving it to Silly Claims. I would have deleted it but I didn't want to delete your first post along with it.
  14. Like
    OceanBreeze reacted to write4u in Neuropeptides In The Neuropsychiatric Disorders Treatment?   
    I  am merely an interested bystander and I cannot contribute to the science,  but from reading I found an interesting connection between autism and microtubule fnction.  I don't know if this is pertinent to the discussion, but thought it might be of interest .  This will be my only post  and I'll sit back and learn.
    Role of Microtubule-Associated Protein in Autism Spectrum Disorder
    Abstract
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6246838/#
  15. Thanks
    OceanBreeze reacted to VictorMedvil in Wuhan Lab Staff First Victims Of COVID-19 Report   
    It seems that there have been reports that the Wuhan Lab Staff were the first victims of the COVID-19 virus as the investigation continues, read more at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9155237/US-claims-researchers-Chinese-institute-fell-ill-weeks-world-knew-Covid.html and https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-claims-wuhan-lab-staff-191305281.html
     
    P.S. This is just the first evidence that China was the source of this pathogen as the investigation continues, we will all find out the truth.
  16. Like
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Rasti in Rube: The Fourth Generation Of Artificial Time/the Real Matrix   
    I have moved your insane rant to silly claims for the moment just to give you a chance to have your free speech.
     
    But I seriously doubt you will last much longer here.
  17. Like
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Anchovyforestbane in Is this a hard question?   
    I think the last symbol should have been / for division instead of the percentage sign.
    Then it could be expressed in words as:
    “The four elements of this cardinal set of basic arithmetic functions are addition, subtraction, multiplication and division”
    But I’m not sure why anyone would want to do this?
     
     
     
     
  18. Like
    OceanBreeze reacted to MarkyMark in Gathering shadow data for school investigation   
    Thanks to both CountryBoy and OceanBreeze for your replies. I think I have moved on a little with the experiment - or at least I hope I have! I was recommended a shadow calculator, and from that, discovered a sun calculator that I believe can assist. As I understand it, I can use it to calculate not only the shadow angle of the object at any time of day (take the azimuth angle and +/- 180 from it) but also the length of shadow relative to the length of the object. 
    I'm currently calculating the daily data. I general the azimuth stays the same while the lengths slowly change. 
    https://www.suncalc.org/#/55.8637,-4.2573,6.746666666666666/2021.07.05/09:56/0.52/3
    I'm now trying to seek verification that my process is correct and that I can go ahead with creating 5 weeks worth of data!
  19. Like
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from bearnard55 in The water on Mars   
    Radiation on Mars:
    Clearly, the high level of radiation on Mars will present many problems for future manned missions, but radiation-contaminated water is not one of them.
    The type of radiation present on Mars is not due to any radioactive materials present on the Red Planet, but is due to regular exposure to cosmic rays and solar wind, plus it receives occasional lethal blasts that occur with strong solar flares.
    Contamination versus Exposure:
    However, a body of water exposed to radiation is not necessarily contaminated with radioactive material.
    For water to be contaminated, radioactive material must be present; either floating on or dissolved in the water. Since cosmic and solar radiation is delivered in the form of rays, it simply passes through the water and does not contaminate it or make the water radioactive.
  20. Thanks
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Trithinium in Is this a hard question?   
    I think the last symbol should have been / for division instead of the percentage sign.
    Then it could be expressed in words as:
    “The four elements of this cardinal set of basic arithmetic functions are addition, subtraction, multiplication and division”
    But I’m not sure why anyone would want to do this?
     
     
     
     
  21. Haha
    OceanBreeze reacted to Anchovyforestbane in Is this a hard question?   
    This is the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and percentage symbols within the notation of a cardinal set... either this is literally gibberish, or it's simply outside my realm of experience. 
  22. Thanks
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Anchovyforestbane in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Your post is rather long, so I will just pick out this one sentence: "So I would say, you can't be a good scientist if you take things as absolutes"
    And I go further and say that you cannot be a scientist at all if you take things as absolutes, and I don't know any actual scientists who do this. I have worked with many scientists throughout my years with the NOAA and they all operate on the principle of following the preponderance of evidence, as I wrote in my earlier posts. I think the OP's question has been fully answered now by multiple people, multiple times but it seems to me he is wanting a specific black & white answer, namely, that our state of science is either perfect or it is bollocks, and will not be satisfied until he gets it. 
    Our state of science is not perfect and it certainly isn't bollocks; it is excellent but it can never be perfect as it is constantly being refined. That is what science is, constant refinement of ideas based on new evidence, and that is what makes science so different from belief.
    Let's see if the OP is finally satisfied or simply repeats the question again and again and again.
  23. Like
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Anchovyforestbane in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    I am sooo glad to see you back! This forum has been badly in need of a good dose of sanity.
  24. Like
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from MasterOgon in Experimental research of flapping flight, unexplored aerodynamics phenomenon and the question of the effectiveness of a flying saucer   
    "Why is it that flying saucer mockups always show a cockpit bulge on the top?"
    "aliens with big heads"
     
    Surely, a man with your incandescent wit should be able to figure this one out.
     
  25. Like
    OceanBreeze got a reaction from Moontanman in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Your post is rather long, so I will just pick out this one sentence: "So I would say, you can't be a good scientist if you take things as absolutes"
    And I go further and say that you cannot be a scientist at all if you take things as absolutes, and I don't know any actual scientists who do this. I have worked with many scientists throughout my years with the NOAA and they all operate on the principle of following the preponderance of evidence, as I wrote in my earlier posts. I think the OP's question has been fully answered now by multiple people, multiple times but it seems to me he is wanting a specific black & white answer, namely, that our state of science is either perfect or it is bollocks, and will not be satisfied until he gets it. 
    Our state of science is not perfect and it certainly isn't bollocks; it is excellent but it can never be perfect as it is constantly being refined. That is what science is, constant refinement of ideas based on new evidence, and that is what makes science so different from belief.
    Let's see if the OP is finally satisfied or simply repeats the question again and again and again.
×
×
  • Create New...