It has nothing whatsoever to do with finite width of the
absorber. Adding an infinitesimally thin wire into the experiment is
sufficient to destroy which way information.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 11:24:06PM -0700, Fred Chen wrote:
Yes I think this is correct.
The theoretical zero amplitude
?
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:29 PM
To: Fred Chen
Cc: 'Everything List'
Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel
It has nothing whatsoever to do with finite width of the absorber.
Adding an infinitesimally thin wire into the experiment
From: Fred Chen
Can there be a transition region where
both aspects are observable?
It is difficult to observe a one-particle pattern
http://www.optica.tn.tudelft.nl/education/photons.asp
But if you are interested in things like whether there is
an experimental smooth, Yin-Yang type :-),
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 11:43:10PM -0700, Fred Chen wrote:
...
A better (and far simpler) way to challenge complementarity would be to
use a low-intensity interferogram in a photographic film or CCD. At
first the photons being detected are few so the shot (particle-like)
aspect is more
-
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Fred Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Everything List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel
Maybe we should look at deterministic theories, such as:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219
John M wrote:
Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept from another side
(another framework), - maybe a new one??
Russell Standish wrote:
Let |i refer to the state where the photon travels on path i. Then
one can write down a few relations, such as:
|1 = 1/sqrt{2}|3 + 1/sqrt{2}|4 = |5
|2 = 1/sqrt{2}|3 - 1/sqrt{2}|4 = |6
If a photon is detected on path 5, then the probability it travelled
along path i is 5|i.
Thanks! Maybe even further?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John M
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
Maybe we should look
If it can't deal with EPR, what good is it?
Brent Meeker
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:35 PM
To: Russell Standish; John M
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
Maybe we should look
PROTECTED]
Aan: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: Saturday, August 14, 2004 04:51 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
Thanks! Maybe even further?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Russell Standish [EMAIL
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:51 AM
To: Fred Chen
Cc: 'Everything List'
Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 11:43:10PM -0700, Fred Chen wrote:
...
A better (and far simpler) way to challenge complementarity would be
to use a low-intensity
another side
(another framework), - maybe a new one??
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Fred Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Everything List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel
'
Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 11:43:10PM -0700, Fred Chen wrote:
...
A better (and far simpler) way to challenge complementarity would be
to use a low-intensity interferogram in a photographic film or CCD. At
first the photons being detected are few so the shot
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 11:28:33AM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
Hmm, on rereading the last section of Unruh's article I see you're
correct--in the second-to-last paragraph he says However, while in the
interference experiment, the presence or absence of the absorber in
Russell Standish wrote:
The presence or absence of the absorber on path 4 changes the
wavefunctions involved, even though the amplitude of the wavefunction
along path 4 is zero.
How exactly does it change the wavefunctions involved? If the outcome of the
experiment is exactly the same, the
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:08:36AM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Also notice that in the analysis of Afshar's experiment by W. Unruh at
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/rebel.html which scerir linked to, Unruh does
not dispute Afshar's claim that all the photons from the each
From: John Collins
Essentially Ashfar's experiment involves fooling himself
(and perhaps a few others) with a new single-path photon
thoery, then undermning the new theory, whcih was not quantum
mechanics..
The orthodox QM says that if we have the usual two-slit,
a which way detector, and
diffraction rules. Quantum mechanics does predicts
Afshar's experiment when it is applied inconsistenly. Afshar's
experiment highlights these inconsistencies.
George
Russell Standish wrote:
I just read the New Scientist article Quantum Rebel last night about
Shariar Afshar's work on the double
scerir quotes Basil Hiley saying:
Sure there is an interference effect simply because Afshar's
experiments do not 'follow' anything and they do not 'look at' each
photon as it passes through a pinhole. He is simply collecting and
counting the distribution of photon arrivals at his two detectors.
http://www.analogsf.com/0409/altview2.shtml
just Cramer talking about Afshar and MWI
and his transactional interpretation
(but why transactions occur exactly in
the right place and moment is difficult
to realize)
s.
From: John M
I think your e-mails arrived blank
because you did not write into it.
No no. It is a fuzzy effect. Due to the
signature/attachment, my Outlook,
my Norton Antivirus, and something else.
But I can read now the body of the (blank) message
in the window properties of the message --
Oops, I too was a victim of viral paranoia this AM and committed wholesale
deletion of all attachment laden emails in my box including, apparently,
Russel's. letter. Can someone send or forward me a copy? (of the letter not
a virus) ;)
Thanks!
Please, Russell,
for the peace of our minds who
I just read the New Scientist article Quantum Rebel last night about
Shariar Afshar's work on the double slit experiment. Ingenious as the
experiment is, I really don't think it says anything about different
interpretations of QM. Indeed, the outcome of the experiment is just
what I'd expect from
I also deleted everything immediately, fearing the viral possibilities of
the attachments.
Jeanne
- Original Message -
From: CMR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel
Oops, I too was a victim of viral paranoia
: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 04:20 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Quantum Rebel
I also deleted everything immediately, fearing the viral possibilities of
the attachments.
Jeanne
- Original Message -
From: CMR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: Re
Saibal Mitra fwded
It may be a question of interpretations of interpretations of QM,
however on the basis of the New Scientist article, I don't believe
Afshar have shown a problem with the complementarity principle.
I agree. But imagine the usual two-slit set-up. And this
unusual screen, to
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Now in the article, Afshar claims to have measured which slit the
photon passed through and verified the existence of an interference
pattern. However, this is not the case - without the wires in
place to detect the presence of the interference pattern, photons
arriving at
Actually, looking at the diagram and explanation of the experiment posted at
http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000674.html I think Saibal Mitra
and the sci.physics.research poster I quoted may have misunderstood what
happened in this experiment. I may have misunderstood, but it
Not me but Russell wrote that. I should have made that clear better when I
posted Russell's attachment (Sorry Russell!).
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 08:59 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Quantum Rebel
Can anyone tell me why the body of the email is blank to some people?
Is it some overzealous defang program the removes the body as well as
the attachment?
I don't care if the attachment is removed - it doesn't contain
information - its purpose is to authenticate the letter only, and can
be
Comments (rants, peals of laughter)?:
http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000674.html
http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000530.html
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:AN9UxmCda50J:faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt++Afshar+experimenthl=en
Cheers!
31 matches
Mail list logo
