This Professor Ward is spewing a lot of nonsense. . .He is making huge simplifications of the real physics and mixing up all sorts of terms and using them in the wrong application. . . .This is often done in an attempt to make reality understandable to people that have no clue about it in the first place. . . . . Just to point put one humongous error he made is interpreting the act of looking as being identical to measuring or detecting. Detecting (or measuring) is an active interfering process with a phenomenon in order to extract INFORMATION from it. DETECTING an electron can only be done by appropriate sensors, in an energetic process, either feeding energy into the process being measured active measuring). Or extracting some energy of the process and feeding that into an instrument to create a Detection Signal. In a detection process applied to an electron the electron either destroyed and has created an electromagnetic impulse in an instrument that can be displayed( that signal can be “looked” at on a screen or on a paper chart. . .after the measuring event has taken place and the interaction is already completed. Such an interaction, for example, is the path of en electron (its kinetics) being altered by an electric or magnetic field, by way of a force (its dynamics). If such change of motion happens this interaction DOES NOT change the electrons essence as a Duality Phenomenon The electron goes on its way in a different direction, possibly also with a different speed, and is not in any way changed into a blob of solid stuff. . . IT NEVER DOES THAT in any case, and certainly not by way of simple interference process that only changes an electron’s velocity. . It is a solid MISINTEPRETATION to assert that an electron, as a wave, all of a sudden becomes a material particle (like tiny solid sphere). So this professor Ward is leading his audience astray. . . Looking at something is a non-active process of receiving electromagnetic radiation (passive observation) and is in no way comparable to a detection process. Looking at an effect of a process is simply looking at a “signal record” of what happened in a detection process. . In regards to Wards discussion” on “colors in a room he misses the point also completely. . .at least in regards to what he said. . . .He may well understand what he is trying to explain but he scores no points. . .What he say makes no sense and he is leading the readers that he trying to reach astray with his nonsense. . In a room in which there is light that is. . .apart form the objects in it and the walls, and possibly a human observer. . . .simply a range of electromagnetic frequencies from lights creating them, and from reflections from the material objects there is no “Color in the room as a physical entity, regardless there is person there or not. The color is only a subjective sensation of a particular person when certain types of electromagnetic radiation enters the eyes. So even if a person is present there is no such thing as “Color in the room” So the question as to IF there is color, or not, in the room when the person has left the room is a RED HERRING that will make the uninformed person SUSPECT that color maybe an objective physical phenomenon. Also “taking” the person out of the room in which the lights are on suggest that the “being in the room” is relevant at all. . . .One could as well ask the person in the room to close his eyes and ask the same “loaded question” that is intended to mislead the person that is. Hopefully, to learn something about light and colors. Alternatively one could ask an equally misleading question this way: “What happens to the colors in the room when the lights are switched off?”. . . .This also leads an uninformed “student” astray by suggesting the color is a “feature in the room” when the lights are on. It should have been instructive to tell people that color is only a subjective sensation that creatures with eyes experience when light enters the eye. . . .In the room NOTHING substantial changes in regards to the light conditions in the room when people leave the room or close their eyes. The physical reality of the radiation in the room is not dependent on anyone looking or not looking at the things in the room. . .The only thing that is relevant in this, in regard to experiencing color or not is the question: “Does any light enters the eye of an observer or not? Nothing else is relevant . . the color sensation is simply a result of light entering the eye and there the radiation is “transformed” into electrical impulses that causes the color experience. For the person that “sees” the colors the eyes are instruments and the electrical signals causes the brain to react. . . .just like a Photo-electric Cell signal can cause a record on a screen or on a paper. These color sensation a person experiences do not alter the external reality of the light in the room . This is an entirely different Physical Effect than what happens in the Double Slit Experiment with electrons, OR WITH PHOTONS, when the electrons (or photons) that are “shot” at the “double slit structure” used in the experiment. . When the “double slit experiment” is run through its steps, then, DEPENDENT on the details of the set-up and WHAT is being done, as the electrons (or photons) hit the double slit structure, one of two things will HAPPEN: . 1) The Impact Pattern on a screen behind the “double slit” structure when made visible one way or another, as a Records of Hits, will be a predominant “Wave Interference Pattern” indicating that the electron, or the photon, has passed through both slits. . . simultaneously . or . 2) The Impact Pattern on a screen behind the “double slit” structure when made visible one way or another, as a Records of Hits, will be a predominant “A Single Spot” Impact Zone” appearing to indicate that the electron, or the photon, has passed through one slit only. . . as if it were a material particle like a macroscopic metal bullet. . The conditions under which such experiment are under 1) and under 2) are substantially different in that in 1) the electron, or the photon, is not being “measured”. . (no “sensor” whatever is used to ascertain that the “wave-particle =WP)” is actually traveling a particular path from the Source to the Sensing Screen behind the slits). The only thing that is known is that the WP has left the source and that it has arrived at the Screen as is the WP experiences interference and that a collection of a series of WP’s produces an Interference Pattern. What exactly happens to a single electron or a single photon on its way to the screen is not known. What is for certain is that a single WP on its way to the screen does not “smear itself out” over the entire screen from left to right (with the “slits” and interference bands vertical). . .So the WP itself does not distribute itself in an infinity of Planck Particles Wave Pattern from left Infinity to Right Infinity. . .What happens is that the Interference Pattern is built up with from “single-location” Hits on the screen which are distributed in an interference pattern, with most of the particles hitting in the center Interference Band, and less and less Hits occur in the Interference Bands away from the center as the distance from the center increases. Recording the impact on a time base demonstrates without any doubt that single shots make “point-like impacts” that leave their mark on the screen as points that light up as they hit. . .like electrons on a TV-tube Phosphor layer. . . . This is important: The interference pattern is a consequence of How the Experiment is set up. One the experiment is running it will continue to create the Wave-Like Interference Bands. With that set-up in a room without people in it NOTING will change with the Interference Bands produced when people enter the room. . .one person or a hundred. . .LOOK at the experiment or not. The experiment and the electrons, or photons don’t give damn if people consciously examine the setup or are having a party and ignore the Setup. . In the case of 2) when the shot of the WP is actively detected IT WILL BE NO DIFFERENT. The apparent Single Impact Region that develops remains unaltered irrespective if people enter the room or not it if they examine the setup by “looking” at everything.. . Of course, this is well known in scientific circles: The act of actively “sensing” the WR’s somehow alters their kinetic and dynamic behavior. HOW this exactly occurs lies within the realm of quantum mechanical “space” behind the veil. . . . . As a WP is “detected” as it moves towards a target. . .the double slit.. . .if you will. . . it does not in principle follow the line of sight path BUT where it will end up is defined by Probability Function. If you fire a single electron. . .(if you could. . .with photons that is certainly possible). . .to a target North of the Source, it might produce a Hit in the East or in the West. . . or even in the South, or it might Hit the ceiling or the ground. . . such is the essence of an electron. If not interfered with by nearby matter . . .an isolated electron is a WP with an infinite extend and it has no concentrated mass at its center. . .Its rest mass and its electric charge is distributed in space. . it has a magnetic moment and has feature called “half-spin”. . . or better phased it Spin Number = ½.. . .but is not actually rotating like a tennis ball could. For an electron there is no “stuff” that could rotate. . . J. . Electrons are never isolated. Nearby other particles or sold matter in their vicinity interacts in some definitive way with electrons so that the distribution of mass and electric charge is altered in a definitive or indefinite way. . often that change from interaction or entanglement is not clear. . .and behaviors is altered too. In that way Measuring the Path or the Motion or the Position cause interdependent effect. . . .The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in an example of that. . .So I leave you with this on the Interaction Idea: . Actively “measuring/detecting” a moving electron. . .or photon. . . is an “interference process” so its “state” is altered in some way. Possibly that detection does alter the essence of that WP that it is altered and is “condemned” to encounter the double slits. . .which are made in a specific material. . .in such a way that the distribution of Hits resembles . . if only very rudimentary. . .the distribution of bullets that are fired form a Machine Gun through a hole in a thick hard metal plate. . .some will go straight through. . .some will “interact” with the edge of the plate and will be deflected a bit. . .and some will hit the metal where there is no hole and the bullets never get to the Target Region. . .In that way bullets are not very terribly different than WP’s, and more than that when electrons pass the Double Slit as IF they were macroscopic bullets they are NOT changing to Newtonian masses but they retain their full WP features. . . .The Electron Charge remains “e”; . . .Its Mass remains defined by its energy E=M*c^2 . . (for as far as this equation is evidently correct); . . .Its Magnetic Moment remains defined as it was before; . . .Its quantum Spin Number 1/2 or –1/2, and never 3/4 or 1/4. . .or 3,4562 or any other number. The inescapable implication is that an Electron. . . in an Double Slit Experiment never changes into a Newtonian Stuff. .it remains a WP !!!! This can be demonstrated in a Double Slit Experiment in which the apparent “Newton Particle Beam” is again examined with a Double Slit Set-up. . . and that “Beam” id not “monitored. . .Then the Interference Pattern shows up again J. Other that that there is more evidence that the electrons. . .or photons remain WP’s after producing a quasi Newtonian Distribution behaviors. The phenomena of Diffraction . . .a wave phenomena. . . can be used to show the electrons and the photons retain their wave-like features. . . . in spite of Professor Wards incoherent drivel that physical objects appear solely on account of: “Looking” at a Probability Function of non-material . . .ehhh. . .”things”. With all this I am NOT supposing that Quantum Effects are merely Deterministic Dynamics. . far from THAT!!!. . .I would rather assert . .and claim that it is indeed so, that bullets from a Machine Gun behave, to some degree, according to the Quantum Dynamics that apply to WP’s. . .but that the wave-particle aspects for them are for near 100% to the solid Newtonian Particles we are accustomed to. . Professor Ward. . . I am a sure. . . has caused a great number of people to scratch their head. . . without having become any wiser on the very interesting Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Dynamics. . .The Quantum Stuff that can not be understood. . .but can be manifested by rigorous experimental procedures. . . .
Posted on: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:24:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015