TakenItSeriously

Senior Members
  • Content count

    458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About TakenItSeriously

  • Rank
    Molecule
  • Birthday 03/12/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Silicon Valley
  • Interests
    Problem Solving, Poker, Physics, Engineering, Digital Security
  • College Major/Degree
    autodidact
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    Learned SR, GR, & QM at age 7. Resolved myself to altruism over religion the age of 17. Solved EMI issues for Gigabit Ethernet which had blocked its rollout for two years.
  • Occupation
    Retired

Recent Profile Visitors

7095 profile views
  1. Who Works Where?

    Betty, Carol, Dan Marketing
  2. Two multiple choice questions

    B & C edit to add: I find that these types of problems are often flawed with more then one valid answer.
  3. Cheryl's Birthday

    A third person can deduce it must be July 16 using all three clues.
  4. Real Test Of Genius

    If my cross was red then it would be trivial for either Wombat or Breeze to know that their cross must be green. Since neither could answer, then my cross must be green.
  5. The Logical solution to the Twin Paradox Explained comprehensively

    Thanks, I really appreciate that. To answer your point, this is why I think that logical models and mathematical models are complimentary to each other. Where one is prone to intuitive error the other is not and vice-versa. Therefore you could say that math and logic are cross validating because they always follow different vectors of reasoning. edit to add: BTW, sorry about the unwieldy username. It’s based on a bit of word play. On other forums such as twoplustwo.com which is fundamentally a poker and gaming forum, I go by TakenItEasy. Lots of people there called me Taken for short.
  6. The Logical solution to the Twin Paradox Explained comprehensively

    Both twins would hear their own transponder at 1 ping/second and that never changes. When the ship is on the return leg, the earth twin would be recieving the ship’s twin’s signal at three pings per second and the ship’s twin would be recieving the Earth twin’s signal at three pings per second. So it’s still symmetrical. Both would be due to relativistic blueshift, but when frequency increases, it doesnt just mean in pitch, but in cycles per second which in this case a cycle is a ping. That doesn't mean that time would actually be sped up, for anybody. it’s only a timelag illusion where the ship is kind of racing its own light. Another words as the ship is leaving Alpha Centauri at 80% c, the light and radio signal is leaving Alpha Centauri at 100% c. So from the Earth FoR the light takes 4 years to reach Earth while the ship takes 5 years to reach Earth. With only 1 year inbetween the two. That means the ship must transmit 3 years worth of pings received in only 1 years time. On the other hand at the turn around, the ship has experienced only 1 year of pings from Earth due to that same lag time because the “now” time is still four years away back on Earth. So now the ship is racing opposite that light coming from earth from 4 years in the past plus the 5 years experienced by the Earth for the second leg of the trip so 4+5 or 9 years of Earth’s pings are crammed into 3 years of travel time for the twin on the ship. It’s confusing, I know, but I hope that makes sense.
  7. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    The photo electric effect was a paper published by Einstein in 1905 which proposed that an electron could be created by light striking a surface with light The explanation for how light could cause the ejection of an electron was first postulated by Max Plank, Albert Einstein, and Niels Bohr: that light was the occurance of energy in descrete quantities or quanta (which later became known as photons) which was the first time light was proposed to be more like a particle than like a wave as it had previously been assumed to be. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was published in 1924 which stated that it was impossible to determine two complimentary properties of a particle at the same time. The Schrodinger Wave Equation was derrived in 1925 and published in 1926 which provided the same conslusion based on eigenstates, but interpreted properties of particles as a kind of wave probability state. The Copenhagen Interpretation which was largely devised by Werner Heisenberg and Niel’s Bohr in the years 1925-2927 was in large part about interpretating these confusing results of duality that seemed to behave sometimes like particles or sometimes like waves. The dual slit experiment that resulted in evidence of both a particle state or a wave state for light depending on wether their path through either slit was observed or not was performed by Davison and Germer in 1927 and was also the experimental basis for the superposition argument of quantum mechanics. It was later shown that electrons could also demonstrate either a particle or a wave state in the same manor. BTW, I may have been wrong when stating that the copenhagen interpretation was largely based on the dual slit experiment according to these dates which I got from Wikipedia, apparantly the dual slit experiment was in 1927 while the interpretation was developed between 1925-27 so the dates might have suggested that it was seen as more of a confirmation of the copenhagen interpretation, or perhaps it was adapted to conform to those results. I’m not sure. Entanglement was predicted in 1935 by Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen and later confirmed through experimentation. However, it was introduced as a thought expeiment that was the basis for his arguement that QM was not complete because it implied that the speed of light would be violated based upon “spooky action at a distance”. In 1964 Bells inequalities was published refuting Einsteins claims that QM was incomplete based on “spooky action at a distance” violating the speed of light, and used the EPR entanglement and the premise that classical probability and the probability of QM are different. Note that while I thought his conclusion about instantanious action at a distance was probably correct, I had strongly disagreed with his premise which was flawed. In fact it’s riddled with flaws to be honest. In my opinion Mathematicians should never try to rely on proofs using logical models. They are simply not equiped to handle logical models because they were trained to think like mathematicians not logicians which are complimentary opposites, just like position and momentum are complimentary opposites. You can’t know both at the same time. Classical probability had never been completely resolved before and was always considered to be an approximation of probability based on incomplete information. For instance the triangle pattern predicted by probability theory is only a function that is supposed to be an approximation of the actual odds, while the wave pattern predicted by QM is much like the binomial distribution pattern that statistics predicts and that the triangle fuction is supposed to estimate. So making claims that they are different and forcing some kind of conclusion from that difference is meaningless. For the record, I agree that QM as it is recognized today is incomplete. But I also agree that instantanious action at a distance is probably true. I never understood why saying that QM wasn’t complete should even be in question? To be fair, I think that Relativity as it is recognized today isn’t complete either. Clearly, neither theory can explain everything so how could anyone say that either theory is complete? Just because I admire a person doesn’t mean I will agree with him on everything. Or just because a conclusion such as instantanious action at a distance may agree with my own thinking, doesn't mean I will agree with a flawed premise such as that proposed by Bell. To do otherwise is simply corrupt thingking towards some biased agenda, just like politics. When scientists behave like politicians, why would they wonder why peole don’t trust them anymore.
  8. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    Of course it has to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation because that interpretation is largely based upon the Dual Slit experiment and your arguement atttacks the conclusions from that experiment.
  9. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    Well, again, I think you should take your arguements up with the origionators of the experiment which was done in the 90’s by Yoon-Ho Kim, R.Yu, S.P. Shih and Marlan O. Scully because that was their conclusion.
  10. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    If you want to argue against the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM to which I am simply referring to. Don’t take it up with me. I assume the data is digitally recorded and correlated and observed after an appropriate statistical sample size has been collected. Then the patterns are determined by the filtered data. I dont have access to the origional papers, only the articles or videos that described the experiment, but I assume that it has been well documented.
  11. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    Ok, so what is your definition of a quantum state?
  12. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    The particle or wave nature is what’s recorded at detector DO and is correlated through their entanglement to the path information at detectors D1-D4.
  13. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    It’s a very confusing setup and I must admit it took me a while to figure it out myself. It basically comes down to the particle streams are divided into entangled streams after the slits. One entangled stream always hits D0 and reveals either a dual distribution or an interference pattern. The other stream may strike one of four detectors after going through a series of splitters that will randomly determine the path of the particle. if the entangled particle hits detector D3 then we know the origional, unentangled particle went through the bottom or blue slit, or if it strikes decector D4, then we know it went through the top or red slit. Therefore, when either of those detectors are hit, their entangled partner particles at D0 exhibit a dual distribution pattern, even though the particles strike D0 before hitting any splitters that randomly determine the path of the particle! When they strike either D1 or D2, there is no way to tell which slit they traveled through, therefore they exhibit wave interference patterns at D0. Weird right?
  14. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    You have dual slits first and then whatever comes out of either (or both) slits are split into entangled streams, then the Quantum eraser shows that even a delayed observation of which slit a particle passes through will determine the pattern even after the fact when the pattern is recorded before the path is or is not detected, which is why the quantum eraser is the weirdest result in QM.
  15. A month or so ago, I was asked to provide a logical explanation to the Twin Paradox that showed why symetrical views of time was not a paradox or how was symmetrical views of time completely consistent with the time deviation experienced between the twins. So as promised I fully explain: Why length contraction is the reason why the twins experience time deviation. Why time deviation was not a paradox with the twins symmetrical views of time because length contraction is the asymetrical component that was never considered. Finally, I show how their symetrical views of time really are completely consistent for the entire journey using a trasponder solution with each other. As always, I will be using the example given in Wikipedia so that you can verify the results with those given in that example and I can skip the math for simplicity sake. I will only be providing the logical models that fully explains the paradox. BTW, this is a good example of my previous statements that while logic may be prone to intuitive errors of false premise, such as the Earth is the center of the Universe because everything appears to revolve around the Earth, math is just as prone to intuitive errors of false conclusions. The key points of the problem are: The ship carrying one of the twins goes straight to Alpha Centauri and back. Acceleration is assumed to be an insignificant factor so velocity is a constant 80% of the speed of light in both directions. Alpha Centauri is assumed to be in relativisticly static motion relative to the Earth with a proper distance of 4 light years. Each twin is equiped with a powerful transponder that pings with a source frequency of exactly once per second or 1Hz. The Earth twin sees that Alpha Centauri is a static 4 lightyears away. Therefore, he calculates the trip will take 4/0.8 = 5 years each way or 10 years total. The ships twin has a different perspective of the trip when moving at 0.8c due to length contraction, the distance is only 60% of the proper distance or 2.4 light years away. Therefore from his point of view, the trip will only last 3 light years each way or 6 years total. So when he returns, he experiences 6 years while the Earth Twin experiences 10 years, however that is not the paradox. The paradox is based on the fact that each twin should have symmetrical points of view of their brothers time which is true: When the ships twin is on the outbound leg moving away from Earth at 0.8c then each twin sees their brothers time as moving at 1/3 of normal, or they would each be receiving a transponder ping only once every 3 seconds. When the ships twin is on the return leg, then each twin sees their brothers time as moving at 3x normal or they would each be recieving 3 pings/sec. These time shifts are due to the relativistic redshift which I didnt bother working out the math again, but the formulas are pretty simple and include time dialaion plus normal doppler effect due to lagtime, so that you can verify the results yourself or just refer to the Wikipedia example which uses the exact same problem. The logical resolution to this paradox is the fact that while their views of each others time is symetrical, their views of the distance traveled is asymetrical. The reason why is that the Earth, Alpha Centari, and the space in between the two are all in the Earths inertial reference frame, while the ship plus what is inside the ship is all that is in the ship’s inertial reference frame. The Earth twin sees the ship is length contracted by 60% which has no bearing on the trip The ships twin sees the Earth’s inertial frame as length contracted and as we said, the Earth, AC and the distance inbetween is all included within that inertial reference frame. Therefore, from the ship’s twin’s point of view the distance is length contracted by 60% of 4 light years or 2.4 light years. So with 60% less distance to trave, then the trip takes 60% less time to travel from the ship twins point of view. Another words while their point of view of time is symmetrical, their point of view of distance is asymtrical which accounts for their deviation in time experienced. We can confirm this by correlating their point of view with lagtime. Another words, from the Earth twins point of view, the ships twin would take 5 years plus it would take 4 years for the light (or transponder signal) to get back to Earth from Alpha Centauri: 5 years + 4 years = 9 years That means the Earth twin would expect to witness the ship actually execute the turnaround 9 years after the ships departure. Or when the transponder signal recieved back on Earth would change from 1 ping every 3 seconds to 3 pings/second then the ship would have executed the turn which would happen 9 years after the origional launch. If you do the math and count the pings received during those 9 years at 1 ping/3 seconds adds up to: 9 years x 1/3 = 3 years which is actually what the ships clock would read at the turn around by both twins. Events that include both a time and a place must always be consistent to any inertial frame. On the trip back to Earth, the journey would only seem to take 1 year as perceived by the Earth twin so: 9 years + 1 year = 10 years total time as expected by the Earth twin. However, during that 1 year, the transponder is pinging 3 times per second so it adds up to 3 years 1 year x 3 = 3 years 3 years + 3 years = 6 years total. The Ships twin experiences something different. He hears the transponder received from Earth ping once every three seconds, and since the outbound leng only takes 3 years, he sees the Earth clock as counting only 1 year. 3/3 = 1 year On the return leg, the ship’s twin experiences three years worth of pings that are pinging at 3 pings per seconds, therefore the Earth clock advances 9 years during his 3 year return leg. 3 years x 3 = 9 years 1 year + 9 years = 10 years which is the time elapsed back on Earth. So not only is the math consistent, it sould not even be a surprise to either twin that their brother has aged differently.