Strange

 

So it is calculated with a medium. But when it was proven that there was no medium, the way he prooved and calculated it is wrong.

It works. That's all you can ask of physics, really.

Huygens is calculated on spherical radiating particles of the medium. But QM waves are no supposed to have a medium.

It doesn't say anything about the medium: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath242/kmath242.htm

(LIke QED, it is a mathematical abstraction that works.)

It goes through both slits

I know this is one interpretation. I feel uncomfortable with it because that also implies that a C60 molecule also "goes through both slits" (http://vcq.quantum.at/publications/all-publications/details/247.html - I believe they have also done this with larger molecules now).

Isn't an alternative interpretation that it is just due to the non-locality of quantum effects (c.f. entanglement) so that the probability of a photon taking a particular path is determined by the entire experimental setup (however large). This seems to fit better with the sum over histories approach in QED (and the fact that effrects are not localised in time as well; as in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments).

Feynman is a method of calculation, based on the assumption of diffraction. It does not explain why.

Feynman has something to say about that in his lectures. I'm not sure "why" is really in the scope of physics. If you can answer "why" at one level, you can always just ask "why" again about the answer. It is a never-ending rabbit hole.

The Curies - well, that was one of the counter-examples I thought of And, of course, it wasn't just the two of them; they exchanged information, materials, ideas, etc with other chemists and physicists.

Einstein and Darwin may have published works as the sole author and be the people most associated with the corresponding theories. But it is rather a stretch to say they worked alone. They took ideas from many other people, discussed their theories with others as they were developing them, etc.

I know Lovelock invented a few things and has been a spokesman for environmental matters but has he been responsible for any "major historic breakthroughs"?

Counter examples:

The structure of DNA

The big bang theory

Continental drift

Almost every aspect of quantum physics

...

And look at the number of theories and laws named after groups of people:

Titius–Bode law

Church-Turing thesis

Bose-Enstein statistics

Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect

Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric

But that is, of course, meaingless. I don't have any quantitative evidence to argue the point. But the lone (and possibly maverick) scientist image seems like a myth to me.

How does Quantum mechanics explain diffraction?

Feynman's lectures on QED explain this: http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Also available as a book.

 

 

If light goes throught a single slit it is diffracted, the waves bent in the slit. In classical waves this is caused by the carrier, which consists of particles which radiate spherical. But a EM-wave has no carrier. So why does the wave bends in exactly the same way as classical waves?

I don't think it is anything to do with the medium (is it?)

I appreciate that you are being tongue-in-cheek, but actually almost every major historic discovery worth making has been made by lone scientists working independently, in every sense of the term.

Really? I am struggling to think of many examples. Especially in the last couple of centuries.

(I wondeer if the OP should be moved to the "Arrogance versus Genius" thread as an example for discussion.)

 

1. I solved a complex molecular biology problem in neuroscience

2. I found an unbreakable encryption algoritm in computer science

3. I found a new source of energy in physics

Where will we find details of these breakthroughs?

well thankx bro but I wanna conduct some expariment about this if you have any idea plz tell me.

Experiments would be hard as this depends on the gravitation of the gas cloud, which will be very weak and insiginificant for any experimental set up. You could use a simulation to model what happens (which is, of course, what astrophysicits do).

Curvature of a ray of light in the field of gravitation similary to refraction of a ray of light in transparent substances.

Similar. But not the same.

 

Who will answer?

Answer what? Do you have a question?

Well, I guess that depends how fast it is rotating. After all, if it isn't rotating then it will collapse, due to its own gravity. So if it is rotating slowly it can collapse, as well. No doubt there is a rotation speed above which it won't collapse. I don't know if any such clouds have been identified.

a free floating planet @ 80 light years would be a speck or invisible

Er, it is a speck.

How do you get constructive interference.when there is only one wave from one slit?

That's the point I'm trying to make. If photons are fundamentally quantised then a single photon can only go through one slit and arrive at one point on the screen.

But there are parts of the detector where the photon is never localized.

I don't see how that is relevant.

IF the photon hits the screen then it does it within the areas where you would expect constructive interference. But it does it at just one point in that area. So you cannot detect the interference pattern from one photon. Because there isn't one. You can't even detect the pattern from 2 or 10 photons.

 

These are the places where two waves from both slits arrive which cancel each other fully.

But, in the case of a single photon, there aren't waves from both slits.

Look at the state of current psychedelic research...it's picking up pace but a far as I know there has only been ONE brain scan study done in the entire field. That's pretty abysmal.

A search on Google Scholar shows nearly 7,000 results for "psychedelic brain scan" with over 400 of those being in 2013.

We can apply this same principle to transitions of cesium isotope atoms.

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Are you suggesting that the ceasium atoms would behave differently on Neptune and Jupiter (by a factor of 1.62)? Or are you just saying that Neptune-seconds and Jupiter-seconds are different lengths?

The first of those obviously needs some justification. The latter is trivially obvious.

 

All photons interfere in the same way, because their waves look the same. So when you add up all, you can see how one looks like. Interference of light is the sum of the behaviour of many photons one by one.

In the classical view, the waves are split and go through both slits, enabling inteference. Is this possible with a single (indivisible) photon? Note that each photon hits a single point on the screen (it isn't spread out across the interference pattern). The inteference pattern only becomes apparent in the distribution of the positions of large numbers of individual photons. I don't think you can explain this in terms of the waveform "in" each photon.

 

If evolution is the reason why we have so many races then why dont we have such cases everywhere everyday in abundance all around us?

Because evolution is (usually) very slow and it can take many generations for significant changes to occur in a population. (And note that evolution is about the population niot individuals.) There are exceptional examples where a new species is created in a single generation, but these are very rare.

I show that from the detector data you can determine (roughly) the size/shape/envelop of a wave(packet) which interferes in the double slit when one photon is detected. I don't say anything (yet) about what this wave is.

I'm not sure how you can do that when there is only one photon (and, being a quantum, it is indivisible).

Also, how does this apply to things like electrons and molecules (which show the same behaviour)?

so if we all come from the same ancestors and all human beings are genetically related then why do we have different races of people like asian, caucasian, black, white, brown etc?

Evolution!

 

if we all have a common ancestor then shouldn't we all be looking the same, having same features, color, race etc?

Do you look exactly like your parents?

 

if we all are related then why dont we ever see a case where a white caucasian couple gives birth to two or three children, one looking like a caucasian, one like chinese and another black?

I have known families who have had one white and one black child (with the same parents). There are even cases of this where both parents were "white".

I don't mean the wavelength, but the length of the wave(packet) as shown in the graphic.

Are you trying to relate this to the size of the photon? I'm not sure that works, unless you are assuming something abut the timing/distance between photons. Remember the experiment works even if you send individual photons through the system one at a time. As far as I know, there is no limit on how separated the photons are; you will still get the interference pattern.

I claimed that the likely number - best estimate - of people who will die of the various effects of radiation released is far from zero, but whether any of them have died yet I don't know and haven't guessed.

The numbers I have seen of expected extra deaths from radiation around Fukushima are indistinguishable from noise compared to the normal number of deaths.

 

Has anybody, after noticing the statistical bumps in the aftermaths of TMI and Chernobyl, been counting stillbirths and documenting the comparative exposure regimes of the mothers? Nobody I can find. But plenty of people have been asserting "no harm".

I don't think anyone is asserting no harm from Chernobyl. There have been a large number of deaths attributed to the accident although the estimates vary enormously.

 

My guess is that this wave is very long with equal amplitude.

Not that long. Visible light has a wavelength between about 380 and 740 nanometres.

(That Wikipedia page is the German equivalent of the one I linked to above)

 

The OP seems to be talking about a first cause which doesn't equate to dead man IMO.

I think the dead man thing was about looking at the evidence to try and reach a conclusion, rather than just jumping to a conclusion without considering the evidence, and possibly contradicting the evidence.

No.Mathematically wrong thing can't be experimentally right in the same case.

I'm not quite sure what that means, but it appears to be wrong. No, it appears to be right...

I think it means, "something which is mathematically wrong, will not give correct the results in experiments". Which is correct. Experimental data is used to falsify incorrect models all the time; that is how science works.

For example, experimental data would show that the OP's incorrect mathematics gave the wrong results.

Experiment confirms the correct results of relativity (and other models).

I am having trouble understanding why, according to the Big Bang Theory, density at the point of singularity is infinite.

Here is my train of thought.

 

Volume at point of singularity = 0

Density = Mass / Volume

Density at point of singularity = Mass / 0

Density is undefined.

 

I don't understand why density is infinite at the point of singularity if the simple calculation above yields an answer that is undefined. Are my calculations incorrect?

Two points.

First, the big bang theory doesn't extend all the way back to time 0; our understanding of physics breaks down before then.

But, for the math you mention, you need to use the concept of "limits" to find out what happens when the volume is zero because, as you say, you can't divide by zero. Limits are usually covered in introductory calculus class, I think but you can get an informal idea by just considering what happens as the volume approaches zero: the density increases ... without limit. By making the volume smaller, you can make the density as large as you like.

The fact that this eventually ends up dividing by zero is pretty much what "singularity" means: a place where the math is undefined.