Can someone explain this visual or lens phenomena?

[Telecaster]

In a nutshell, the big picture of quantum physics suggest that almost anything is possible. Probabilities and not 'laws' seem to rule that field.

Hmmm… Quantum mechanics is as deterministic as Maxwell's electromagnetism. It's rules are precise, in fact the most precise we have for anything. But there's a twist: you can't know all the properties of a quantum mechanical object or system at the same time. Therefore you must deal with probabilities…because that's the best you can do. In attempting to study the behavior of, say, protons, you inevitably disturb them, thus altering their behavior. In precisely determining one property of the proton—its location maybe—you end up smearing out (yet within a precisely delimited range…that is, a range of probability) your knowledge of a related property such as its trajectory. This is a hard observational limit, not something that can be overcome with better tools or techniques. Anything is in fact not possible. But within a precisely known range of something, multiple maybes have varying likelihoods of being definite. It's hard to convey this any better without getting into the math, which is the native language of all this stuff. Anyway, the world of the very small is most certainly not our world shrunk down. It's a different thing altogether. It may seem weird to us, but that's our hangup.

Again, re. climate science: the scientists doing the nitty gritty work aren't confused about what truth is. Truth is just "our best current understanding." These folks are always gathering more info and updating their models and conclusions accordingly. But when interpreting the data for the broader public it's inevitable that individual concerns and biases creep into the mix. Especially when you're dealing with something having such large economic and political implications. You can see this at work in the fossil fuel industry too. And then you have a media environment where anything complex & subtle gets reduced to a declaration of certainty, the more sensational & provocative the better. Given this, something like our current impasse was IMO also inevitable.

My own preference is to tune out the short-term noise. IMO diversifying our sources of energy is a good thing regardless of climate issues. We'll have to do it eventually anyway.

-Dave-

[Zorki5]

But there's a twist: you can't know all the properties of a quantum mechanical object or system at the same time. Therefore you must deal with probabilities…because that's the best you can do.

That's Copenhagen interpretation. Which I think is correct... BUT...

NASA has recently (finally!) conducted experiment with the famous/notorious/infamous (depending upon your POV...) EmDrive. Official results arrived literally few days ago. And guess what, they confirmed it does generate thrust: some 1.2 mN/kW (small, but still two orders of magnitude more powerful than light sails). WOW. Preprints were all over the internet (spreading from arxiv, I guess...), but now it's official. Here's a good account of the matter.

What does it mean?

IFF it proves to be true, probabilities in quantum mechanics might at some point become things of the past. The thing is that the only feasible explanation of why the damn thing works is based on pilot-wave theory ("realist interpretations of quantum mechanics that conjecture that the statistical nature of the formalism of quantum mechanics is due to an ignorance of an underlying more fundamental real dynamics"); see section 10 on the page I linked above. I still say "IFF it proves" because several earlier experiments conducted by different groups failed. This time though, it's NASA themselves who're dealing with it, which makes it almost as reputable as it gets. Eagleworks Labs. Well, still not Jet Propulsion Lab at Caltech, but close enough 

[Phil Indeblanc]

Thanks George

Interesting posts, no doubt.

So....

1. Find 2 points of land, or even better a structure that has some height to it, i.e. bridge, etc
2. See that the water is calm.
3. Measure the distance of the 2 points. Measure the height of the object or land mass.
4. Measure how much of it has been obstructed by water vs its point at zero level, and apply the math/Pythagoras Theorem/law to see that it works, and we do have a curve.

This should do it, no?

[N80]

Hmmm… Quantum mechanics is as deterministic as Maxwell's electromagnetism. It's rules are precise, in fact the most precise we have for anything. But there's a twist: you can't know all the properties of a quantum mechanical object or system at the same time.

I'm sure you're right. But I'm not sure that it's any more relevant to the rest of us. And by the rest of us, I don't mean the uneducated. I mean everyone else who isn't a physicist.

Therefore you must deal with probabilities…because that's the best you can do.

What I was trying to say, just not very well.

In attempting to study the behavior of, say, protons, you inevitably disturb them, thus altering their behavior. In precisely determining one property of the proton—its location maybe—you end up smearing out (yet within a precisely delimited range…that is, a range of probability) your knowledge of a related property such as its trajectory. This is a hard observational limit, not something that can be overcome with better tools or techniques.

As in Heisenberg with electrons. A hard observational limit as well. This is another way of saying that science has limits. Others say that is NOT the proper conclusion of the Uncertainty Principle. Not sure how that can be avoided. But it sure isn't the popular mantra. "Science is limitless!"

Anything is in fact not possible.

I'll take your word for it but have read differently. Maybe semantics. Maybe my misunderstanding. Maybe the difficulty you referred to below of explaining quantum mechanics without doing quantum mechanics.

Anyway, the world of the very small is most certainly not our world shrunk down. It's a different thing altogether. It may seem weird to us, but that's our hangup.

And efforts to reconcile the differences are moving slowly, if at all.

Again, re. climate science: the scientists doing the nitty gritty work aren't confused about what truth is.

Disagree. I think this is part of the problem with the popular perception of science. We see "scientists" as these two dimensional Mr. Spock/Mr. Data figures in starched white lab coats. The truth is that scientists are just as human as everyone else and all that being human comes with including conflicts of interest, ideologies, pride, hubris, ego, greed, dishonesty and even misplaced good intentions. All of this affects science. Always has. And usually weakens it. Fortunately open discourse and transparency help prevent some of the issues that go with us being human. Sometimes not. There was a book written 15 or 20 years ago about how theses sorts of things have shaped the state of science over the centuries. I wish I could remember the name.

Truth is just "our best current understanding."

Yet science has a long history of being wrong. Some see the glass half full and suggest that each new "best current understanding" was built on the previous "best current understanding". Certainly this is valid, but the fact is, yesterday we were wrong. Or less right.

But when interpreting the data for the broader public it's inevitable that individual concerns and biases creep into the mix. Especially when you're dealing with something having such large economic and political implications. You can see this at work in the fossil fuel industry too. And then you have a media environment where anything complex & subtle gets reduced to a declaration of certainty, the more sensational & provocative the better. Given this, something like our current impasse was IMO also inevitable.

Exactly.

My own preference is to tune out the short-term noise. IMO diversifying our sources of energy is a good thing regardless of climate issues. We'll have to do it eventually anyway.

Absolutely. Diversify. Conserve. All good ideas regardless of what we think of the science. But the noise is hard to tune out when it drives policy that isn't supported by the science much less the noise. And maybe it would be better for people like me to concede the science of climate change and challenge the projected consequences (how can they ALL be negative?) and the proposed solutions neither of which have much more than speculation behind them.

[Farmer]

I'm sorry for this thread, with your suggestions,  I do have to move on and not waste time. Feel free to join in constructively..

Keep in mind. You suggested I measure a surface being plane and level on the ground, by measuring it using the sun.

No, I didn't.  I gave you something simple and practical to do by way of observation that would help you to see first hand that the Earth must be curved.  That is constructive.  Far more constructive than posting links to wild assertions presented as fact without any actual evidence (as if the scale of an HD video was sufficient to measure precise variations of fractions of a degree).

[Ray]

Hmmm… Quantum mechanics is as deterministic as Maxwell's electromagnetism. It's rules are precise, in fact the most precise we have for anything. But there's a twist: you can't know all the properties of a quantum mechanical object or system at the same time. Therefore you must deal with probabilities…because that's the best you can do. In attempting to study the behavior of, say, protons, you inevitably disturb them, thus altering their behavior. In precisely determining one property of the proton—its location maybe—you end up smearing out (yet within a precisely delimited range…that is, a range of probability) your knowledge of a related property such as its trajectory. This is a hard observational limit, not something that can be overcome with better tools or techniques. Anything is in fact not possible. But within a precisely known range of something, multiple maybes have varying likelihoods of being definite. It's hard to convey this any better without getting into the math, which is the native language of all this stuff. -Dave-

Dave,
I find that an excellent explanation  for what is often termed 'quantum weirdness'. It makes complete sense to me.

I think the inquisitive mind searches for meaningful and rational explanations for all observed phenomena. Even though a more complete understanding might require an expertise in disciplines one has not mastered, there needs to be available an explanation in common language that can be generally understood.

Was it Einstein who is reputed to have said something to the effect, 'Don't believe in a theory which cannot be explained in ordinary language'?

Now, I don't want to be accused of getting off topic. However, for photography, I think the subject of 'light' can never be off-topic.
One weird aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity, is the constancy of the speed of light. When observing the speed of all the stuff that is detectable through our senses, it makes perfect sense that the speed of anything is always relative to the speed of something else.

For example, I'm sitting at my computer, motionless (apart from very minor movements of my arms and finger, and a slight swaying and blinking of my eyes, and a slight expansion and contraction of my body as I breathe, and so on), yet I understand if my reference point is the sun, I'm actually travelling at about 10,000 kilometers per hour. I'm not aware of that fact through my physical senses, because my immediate surroundings are also travelling at the same speed.

So far, so good. If I'm following a car which is travelling at 100km per hour, but I am travelling at only 90km per hour, then the car I am following is travelling at 10km per hour relative to my car. That's perfectly clear.

However, if that car I'm following is shining a beam of light, the speed of which I'm measuring with the latest scientific instruments, then the speed of that light would be shown as constant whatever the relative speeds. If the car I'm following were to suddenly stop, the speed of the light that was emanating from the car would remain the same. If the car I was following were able to accelerate to ridiculously high speeds, the speed of the light emanating from the car would not change, relative to my car.

How does one explain this phenomenon in ordinary language? The traditional explanation, so far, is that time and space warp in order to ensure that the speed of light is constant. However, time and space are very nebulous concepts. They are constructs of the human imagination.

How can we actually measure, completely objectively, the warping of space and time? Just as it's impossible to measure and detect all the activities of a photon, at a precise moment in time, which results in this 'duality' of particle and wave, how is it possible to measure the warping of space and time, without another reference to a standard?

What is the ultimate standard? Well, the theory which makes the most sense to me, and is in a sense very obvious, is that all our theories and understanding of all issues are based upon, and limited by, our human faculties and characteristic as a biological organism, which includes all the processes that our organism relies upon for its survival.

I think Neuroscientists would agree that our mental processes involve electrons in our brains travelling at the speed of light. All our sensory perceptions are related to the speed of light. Therefore, how could we possible measure any variation in the speed of light.

The explanation of the warping of space and time, in this context, seems just too convenient to be true.

Please nominate me for a Nobel Prize. 

[Rob C]

"I think Neuroscientists would agree that our mental processes involve electrons in our brains travelling at the speed of light. All our sensory perceptions are related to the speed of light. Therefore, how could we possible measure any variation in the speed of light.

The explanation of the warping of space and time, in this context, seems just too convenient to be true.

Please nominate me for a Nobel Prize."   ................ Ray



That's a very flattering remark, Ray, but entirely undue. In my case, anyhow, and I suspect the same holds true for everyone else here - they just don't know it yet.

I have never known anyone who does not hesitate, at least momentarily, when thrown an unexpected question.

Okay - I nominate you; why not?

Rob

[GrahamBy]

What is the ultimate standard? Well, the theory which makes the most sense to me, and is in a sense very obvious, is that all our theories and understanding of all issues are based upon, and limited by, our human faculties and characteristic as a biological organism, which includes all the processes that our organism relies upon for its survival.

Why should the physical universe give a shit about whether you, or any other biological entity on a non-descript planet on an outer arm of a minor galaxy, are able to understand it?

I think Neuroscientists would agree that our mental processes involve electrons in our brains travelling at the speed of light.

You might think that. I've never met a neuroscientist that does. I've never met a theoretical physicists that does... nor one that believes a massive particle such as an electron will travel at the speed of light anywhere.

Ray, I'm afraid you are a walking example of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Farmer]

Thought certainly doesn't happen at the speed of light.

http://www.livescience.com/14735-neuron-synapse-speed-clocked.html

It takes, for example around 0.3 seconds for our brains to react to visual stimuli.  In 0.3 seconds light in a vacuum travels nearly 90,000km.  Even the largest brains in humans aren't that big :-)

[Ray]

Why should the physical universe give a shit about whether you, or any other biological entity on a non-descript planet on an outer arm of a minor galaxy, are able to understand it?

What a strange question! Are you personifying the entire universe as a sentient being who shits? A 'non-descript planet on an outer arm of a minor galaxy' is nothing more than a human description.

You might think that. I've never met a neuroscientist that does. I've never met a theoretical physicists that does... nor one that believes a massive particle such as an electron will travel at the speed of light anywhere.

Good point! I wasn't clear. It's not the individual electrons that travel at the speed of light, but the electrical signal that travels, or can travel in ideal circumstances, at the speed of light, or at least close to the speed of light. However, there are many chemical reactions that also take place in any thought process in the human brain, which obviously slows things down.

To rephrase my point, the processes in our brain are dependent on certain activities that take place at a certain maximum speed, which is the speed of light. Some processes are slower than the speed of light, such as chemical reactions, but none are faster than the speed of light. We are therefore trapped within the conditions of our own existence, and cannot measure any speed faster than the speed of light, in our external world. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my point. 

The following site sheds some light on the speed of electrical signals.
http://sciencequestionswithsurprisinganswers.org/2014/02/19/what-is-the-speed-of-electricity/

"The individual electron velocity in a metal wire is typically millions of kilometers per hour. In contrast, the drift velocity is typically only a few meters per hour while the signal velocity is a hundred million to a trillion kilometers per hour. In general, the signal velocity is somewhat close to the speed of light in vacuum, the individual electron speed is about 100 times slower than the signal velocity, and the electron drift speed is as slow as a snail."

[Robert Roaldi]

I remember when my daughter wanted to give me my first computer. I recall telling her that there wasn't much point, as I had no intentions of computing anything. From the name, I assumed it was for doing calculations.

Anyway, I brought the thing (an old Mac she wanted rid of) back from Scotland in the car, thus losing the trunk space I'd hoped to fill with a couple of boxes of French wine.

Only later did I discover it was for writing letters and entertainment...

Frankly, I don't know if I'd have been better off with the wine. It certainly changed my habits, but years later, I still don't really know if that was a good thing or not.

Rob

The pleasure of wine is so temporary, but the pain of constant computer upgrades is eternal.

[Ray]

Thought certainly doesn't happen at the speed of light.

I'm glad you guys are on the ball, so to speak. You're right. Neural processes involve chemical reactions, so there are always time lags in relation to the speed of light.
My point is that the speed of light is the limiting factor in the speed of neuronal activity. No process can happen faster than the speed of light, although many processes happen slower because of a convoluted chain of reactions.

I'm really addressing the explanation for the constancy of the maximum speed of light. It seems to me we are projecting onto the universe a human interpretation, in terms of the warping of space and time, in order to explain this constancy, when in fact a truer explanation might be that our thought processes, although not as fast as the speed of light, taking the whole chain of reactions into consideration, are limited by processes in the brain that do take place at the speed of light.

For example, the speed of light can sometimes appear slower, when observed through glass, or liquid, or air, which is known as diffraction, but in a vacuum it has a maximum speed which is unrelated to the speed of the observer.

If an asteroid were whizzing towards earth at say half the speed of light, one might logically expect that any light (from the sun) that was reflected off that asteroid, as we observed it from the earth, would be travelling faster than the normal, constant speed of light. It's not so, apparently.

If that asteroid were travelling away from observers on Earth, at half the speed of light, the light reflected from the asteroid to earth, would still be measured at the same constant speed.

[pcgpcg]

We are therefore trapped within the conditions of our own existence, and cannot measure any speed faster than the speed of light, in our external world.

No process can happen faster than the speed of light..

"Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one hundredth of a percent of the travel time of light between them."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Just stirring the pot...

[Phil Indeblanc]

I'll let this simmer down, and maybe we can setup a test as I first thought to do.

this sure did take a turn :-) now electromagnetism vs gravity can be discussed :-)

[Telecaster]

NASA has recently (finally!) conducted experiment with the famous/notorious/infamous (depending upon your POV...) EmDrive. Official results arrived literally few days ago. And guess what, they confirmed it does generate thrust…

Not so fast. The data gathered by the EmDrive researchers has passed peer review as has their methodology. Whether or not it actually works is an open question. No independent group has yet replicated it. The researchers' proposed explanation of how EmDrive works, if it works, is almost certainly nonsense. The "quantum vacuum" they refer to isn't a fixed frame you can thrust against.

This is a perfect example of how something preliminary and in many respects tenuous gets mutated into something certain and revolutionary by the combo of clickbaiting media and eager-to-believe public. We'll see soon enough whether or not there's something in it. Until then, caution is in order.

As for interpretations (edit: corrected spelling mistake) of quantum mechanics, I lean more towards Everett (relative state, aka "many worlds," aka Feynman's sum-over-histories) than Copenhagen. But this is unimportant. The objective is simply to understand it as best as possible. If EmDrive turns out to be useful in this, great. But…caution.

-Dave-

[Telecaster]

this sure did take a turn :-) now electromagnetism vs gravity can be discussed :-)

Phil, we do it all here! 

-Dave-

[Zorki5]

Not so fast. The data gathered by the EmDrive researchers has passed peer review as has their methodology. Whether or not it actually works is an open question. No independent group has yet replicated it.

I beg to differ on this one.

NASA's lab is that independent group, the first to confirm the original experiments done by Shawyer and Fetta.

As to caution: who'd argue about the necessity to be cautions? Definitely not me. Let me quote myself: "I still say "IFF it proves" because several earlier experiments conducted by different groups failed. This time though, it's NASA themselves who're dealing with it, which makes it almost as reputable as it gets. Eagleworks Labs. Well, still not Jet Propulsion Lab at Caltech, but close enough  "

[N80]

I'll let this simmer down, and maybe we can setup a test as I first thought to do.

this sure did take a turn :-) now electromagnetism vs gravity can be discussed :-)

Sorry.

[Telecaster]

Some good stuff here.

As in Heisenberg with electrons. A hard observational limit as well. This is another way of saying that science has limits. Others say that is NOT the proper conclusion of the Uncertainty Principle. Not sure how that can be avoided. But it sure isn't the popular mantra. "Science is limitless!"

I'd go with "the pursuit of knowledge is limitless," meaning we'll never learn everything there is to learn. Some folks, however, declare "science has limits" in the interest of shielding certain things—typically cherished beliefs—from critical scrutiny. This I have no respect for.

Re. the world of the very small: I find it best to think of things like photons, electrons, etc. as being wave-like but sometimes, when detected by certain measurement devices (like camera sensors), appearing to be particle-like. When I say a wave of light is 720 nanometers long, that's just another way of saying that if I were to detect the light as individual photons they'd all show up within a 720 nm span on my detector. I can't say where within that span any particular photon will appear, even if I know its point of origin, but I know with certainty that they'll all be within that span. Probability within a deterministic framework.

We see "scientists" as these two dimensional Mr. Spock/Mr. Data figures in starched white lab coats. The truth is that scientists are just as human as everyone else and all that being human comes with including conflicts of interest, ideologies, pride, hubris, ego, greed, dishonesty and even misplaced good intentions. All of this affects science. Always has. And usually weakens it. Fortunately open discourse and transparency help prevent some of the issues that go with us being human. Sometimes not. There was a book written 15 or 20 years ago about how these sorts of things have shaped the state of science over the centuries. I wish I could remember the name.

I don't think we disagree much here. Scientists are humans, and humans are complicated and often contradictory. But I'd push back against the view of "science" as an edifice or an accumulation of data & interpretation. Science is just a process and a tool we use, often to better understand the world and our place in it but sometimes for other reasons.

You're probably thinking of Thomas Kuhn's book. That book is IMO a problematic tangle of good points, wooly-headed thinking and post-modernist horseshit. It was written in an environment of contempt towards any endeavor claiming to be anchored in anything objective. Solipsism to the max. To be fair this was provoked by the abuse of science by the Nazis and other totalitarian movements. But I'd recommend John Gray's book The Immortalization Commission as a superior take on the same basic subject matter, minus the "we can't really know anything about anything" slant.

Yet science has a long history of being wrong. Some see the glass half full and suggest that each new "best current understanding" was built on the previous "best current understanding". Certainly this is valid, but the fact is, yesterday we were wrong. Or less right.

Like I said, science is a process. The majority of the results generated by doing science at any given time will turn out to be wrong. That's how it is, and it's okay. As you've noted, we're humans and not robots. Needing to be right is a sign of dogmatic rather than inquisitive thinking. A good scientist is comfortable with "I don't know for sure but let's keep working on it" being the best answer to many if not most questions. If we ever get to a place where most human beings are comfortable with "I don't know…" then we'll really have got somewhere.

Diversify. Conserve. All good ideas regardless of what we think of the science. But the noise is hard to tune out when it drives policy that isn't supported by the science much less the noise. And maybe it would be better for people like me to concede the science of climate change and challenge the projected consequences (how can they ALL be negative?) and the proposed solutions neither of which have much more than speculation behind them.

I certainly think challenging the doomsayers rather than obfuscating the data is the way to go. Standing in the way of this is a worldview insisting that the basic parameters of the world can't change, therefore nothing to fuss over regardless of the data. At the other end you've got a competing worldview insisting that the basic parameters of the world shouldn't change, that they have some sort of intrinsic perfection (ignoring the planet's entire history of geological & climatic upheaval, large-scale extinctions, etc.) and therefore must be preserved. Gonna be tough to deal with.

-Dave-

[Telecaster]

NASA's lab is that independent group, the first to confirm the original experiments done by Shawyer and Fetta.

Read the Eagleworks paper more carefully. They haven't made or tested an EmDrive themselves. They've just confirmed that the folks who have made and tested one followed valid procedures and got what appears to be a genuine result. I imagine NASA will build one themselves now.

-Dave-