Thanks LibWhacker.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 09/18/2021 9:44:43 AM PDT by LibWhacker
interesting - thanks!
Finally
Now I can get some sleep.
It’s all done with mirrors
Just bookmarked. Fascinating stuff!
Thank you!
Wait, they kicked the can UP the road?
Something I've learned recently is that a photon has spin. This seems very strange to me, because a photon has no mass. How can it have spin?
But that is no stranger (I guess) than the fact that a photon carries momentum, even though it has no mass. Perhaps its momentum is what's spinning, even though there's no mass there to spin.
It has energy though, so its mass-energy (E/c2) not zero.
I learned about this from the YouTube lecture series of David Butler, which is the best I've ever seen... and I've watched a lot of them.
If you watch all five of his "How small is it?" videos in order, he will take you from what you see through a magnifying glass right down to the Higgs boson, and explain everything with amazing insight. As I said, the best I've ever seen.
I have thought of it as if the particle exists and is sustained in a linear spatial configiration, while the wave nature of that energy is in a planar configuration. The planar configuration is what goes through two slits but the particle configuration can only go through one slit.
100% of the “difference” is in the equipment (the nature of the equipment) doing the identification and measuring and not in quantum item being identified and measured.
It is a “wave” as known to a “detector” whose natural state is to identify a “wave”, and it is a particle to a “detector” whose natural state is to identify a “particle”.
In its own state, it (light) is neither while to us (because of our means of detection) it is both.
It truth the difference is not in the “property” of light but only in how it appears (to us) to behave, depending on which mode of detection is being used.
Thanks for your tip on Butler’s lecture series. I’m going to check him out.
And no, I can’t answer your question about spinning objects that have no mass. It never would have occurred to me to question whether or not such things exist. That’s what I love about FR; there’s always someone who asks the question that stops you in your tracks and makes you go, “Whoa,” but in the end, after much head scratching, can lead you closer to understanding, thank you!
Could you put me on the ping list? Thank-you
Great post—science now recognizes (at least at the theoretical level) how critical the observer is (whether human or machine).
However, they have been hesitant to think through all of the implications for metaphysics and physics.
That will be the next “big jump” in human understanding.
Allowing life to be cause over matter and energy is a place they don’t want to go. They are Materialists after all.
At first glance, the experimental setup seems similar to the quantum eraser experiments that are all the rage these days...
Will have to read the actual paper before making any comments...
However, seems pretty neat...
Of course I like almost any experiment that does require the LHC at Cern...
Will do.
“does require...” ==>”does NOT require...”
Wow.
Now they will figure out how to make a Transporter. And Photon torpedos.
I just won’t be here to see it.
5.56mm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.