Science > Physics > Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2005 01:25:31 PM |
| Object: |
Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
Pencho I have news for you. Your computer might have been made with a
disk with pegs on it! I have expanded my earlier piece on relativity by
an expanded account involving the theory of the synchrotron.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmargaret/relativity.htm
VUV and X-Ray production using a synchrotron depends critically on the
theory of relativity.
Incidentally I do not agree with Einstein about everything. I simply
believe that Relativity is true and alternative theories cannot be
defended.
Einstein also wrote a lot about Quantum Theory which is quite simply
wrong. He said "Gott wuefelt nichts". In fact the orthadox theory of
chaos states that a butterfly in Japan can cause a hurricane in the
Gulf. This is without even the Q word. In fact to make a prediction
(classically) we need higher and higer precision. We need 100 decimal
paces to predict hurricanes and with time the number of decimal places
expands. It it as if a timeline had its own information content.
Quantum theory of course completes the playing with dice. Indeed
quantum theory allows us to treat information theory and entropy as
complementary concepts.
WEinstein found it difficult to accept these concepts philosophically.
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
11 Aug 2005 02:21:15 PM |
|
|
<ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123784731.350508.179340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmargaret/relativity.htm
"Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must have
mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
This is so silly.
Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so much
so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.
Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
Join the Flat Earth Society, Ian. They welcome those with arguments like
yours.
They open their arms to people as stupid as they are, you dingbat.
| VUV and X-Ray production using a synchrotron depends critically on the
| theory of relativity.
|
| Incidentally I do not agree with Einstein about everything. I simply
| believe that Relativity is true and alternative theories cannot be
| defended.
Wanna try me? I can defend Ritz, Newton and Galileo over Einstein
with 10 million neurons tied behind my back, and I accept your
challenge.
Einstein violated existing mathematical rules that still exist today.
I do not agree the findings must be simple to understand, since you do
not understand Einstein's mischievous intent and skulduggery in deriving
his cuckoo transforms.
The perspicuousness of the proof must be commensurate with Einstein's
own idle musings. If you'll agree to that, I'll blow a hole in your
belief
big enough to drive a bus through.
[snip Quantum - irrelevant]
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and SoftX-Rays |
11 Aug 2005 02:29:54 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so much
so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.
Actually Ptolemy's epicycles have considerable predictive error--maybe
"impeccable" before Brahe's time in the 1500s... but unacceptably wrong
even for todays amateur astronomers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
11 Aug 2005 07:36:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:29:54 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Androcles wrote:
Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so much
so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.
Actually Ptolemy's epicycles have considerable predictive error--maybe
"impeccable" before Brahe's time in the 1500s... but unacceptably wrong
even for todays amateur astronomers.
Ptolemy was "predictive" only for an orbit for which epicycles
had already been calculated.
Any error could be resolved by the addition of new epicycles, the
whole thing being not unlike a fourier analysis.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
11 Aug 2005 07:33:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:
<ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123784731.350508.179340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmargaret/relativity.htm
"Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must have
mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
This is so silly.
Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so much
so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.
Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
descriptive and could not make a prediction. Discovery of a new
orbiting body would require the creation of new epicycles,
whereas the Newtonian theory of gravitation will explain newly
discovered orbits without kludges like epicycles. Copernican and
Keplerian mechanics are easily seen as subcases of the
application of the inverse square gravity law. In fact,
derivation of Kepler's laws is one of the little exercises for
students in a classical mechanics course.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
11 Aug 2005 06:55:46 PM |
|
|
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:farnf1116uh1r08vf01bb4cfni50khhbb9@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| ><ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >news:1123784731.350508.179340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >
| >| http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmargaret/relativity.htm
| >
| >"Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
| >credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must
have
| >mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
| >
| >This is so silly.
| >
| >Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so
much
| >so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.
| >
| >Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
|
| The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
| descriptive and could not make a prediction.
Silliness again.
Prediction of planetary positions are the heart of astrology, wrapped
in mumbo-jumbo.
"When Mars is in the fifth house..."
That garbage has been with us for 2000 years, but it could accurately
predict when two planets would be in conjunction.
Lunar and solar eclipses we always predicted.
Comets were not predicted until Halley came along.
http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
Go outside and watch for the next couple of months.
I predict you'll see Mars go retrograde. You dont need
to stay outside for long, just find Mars and note where it is
relative to the fixed stars each night before you go to bed.
| Discovery of a new
| orbiting body would require the creation of new epicycles,
| whereas the Newtonian theory of gravitation will explain newly
| discovered orbits without kludges like epicycles. Copernican and
| Keplerian mechanics are easily seen as subcases of the
| application of the inverse square gravity law. In fact,
| derivation of Kepler's laws is one of the little exercises for
| students in a classical mechanics course.
Nothing wrong with teaching kids real mechanics.
E = M-e.sin(E) is too much for most though.
http://www.akiti.ca/KeplerEquation.html
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
11 Aug 2005 08:59:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:55:46 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:farnf1116uh1r08vf01bb4cfni50khhbb9@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| ><ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >news:1123784731.350508.179340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >
| >| http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmargaret/relativity.htm
| >
| >"Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
| >credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must
have
| >mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
| >
| >This is so silly.
| >
| >Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so
much
| >so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.
| >
| >Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
|
| The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
| descriptive and could not make a prediction.
Silliness again.
Prediction of planetary positions are the heart of astrology, wrapped
in mumbo-jumbo.
"When Mars is in the fifth house..."
That garbage has been with us for 2000 years, but it could accurately
predict when two planets would be in conjunction.
Lunar and solar eclipses we always predicted.
Comets were not predicted until Halley came along.
Those predictions weren't based on Ptolemaic epicycles. Fr the
most part they were done by historical observation of previous
appearances of the phenomenon.
http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
Go outside and watch for the next couple of months.
I predict you'll see Mars go retrograde. You dont need
to stay outside for long, just find Mars and note where it is
relative to the fixed stars each night before you go to bed.
I haven't the foggiest what you're trying to tell me here, since
none of it seems relevant to what I posted.
| Discovery of a new
| orbiting body would require the creation of new epicycles,
| whereas the Newtonian theory of gravitation will explain newly
| discovered orbits without kludges like epicycles. Copernican and
| Keplerian mechanics are easily seen as subcases of the
| application of the inverse square gravity law. In fact,
| derivation of Kepler's laws is one of the little exercises for
| students in a classical mechanics course.
Nothing wrong with teaching kids real mechanics.
E = M-e.sin(E) is too much for most though.
http://www.akiti.ca/KeplerEquation.html
Differential equations are too much for most.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
11 Aug 2005 09:22:45 PM |
|
|
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:se0of1ptoo66id2k359pb68s8ptnipjjdu@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:55:46 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >news:farnf1116uh1r08vf01bb4cfni50khhbb9@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| ><ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >| >news:1123784731.350508.179340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >| >
| >| >| http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmargaret/relativity.htm
| >| >
| >| >"Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
| >| >credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must
| >have
| >| >mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
| >| >
| >| >This is so silly.
| >| >
| >| >Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so
| >much
| >| >so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous
intent.
| >| >
| >| >Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
| >|
| >| The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
| >| descriptive and could not make a prediction.
| >
| >Silliness again.
| >Prediction of planetary positions are the heart of astrology, wrapped
| >in mumbo-jumbo.
| >"When Mars is in the fifth house..."
| >That garbage has been with us for 2000 years, but it could accurately
| >predict when two planets would be in conjunction.
| >Lunar and solar eclipses we always predicted.
| >Comets were not predicted until Halley came along.
|
| Those predictions weren't based on Ptolemaic epicycles. Fr the
| most part they were done by historical observation of previous
| appearances of the phenomenon.
I'm not upholding Ptolemy, but he prediced accurately and you are
guessing.
|
| >
| >http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
| >
| >Go outside and watch for the next couple of months.
| >I predict you'll see Mars go retrograde. You dont need
| >to stay outside for long, just find Mars and note where it is
| >relative to the fixed stars each night before you go to bed.
| >
|
| I haven't the foggiest what you're trying to tell me here, since
| none of it seems relevant to what I posted.
We are discussing your pov that Ptolemy could not accurately
predict, which he could, and Ian Parker's pov that Copernicus
was acting with mischievous intent, a conclusion I'd be forced
to make if I agreed with his philosophy.
No telescopes allowed, though.
As far as Ian Parker's pov goes, I'd like to know why he considers
I'd have mischievous intent if I challenged
1)
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and
2)
http://www.siprep.org/faculty/dann/Muon%20Exp/muon%20exp_t_rel.pdf
I happen to think Einstein had mischievous intent when he wrote
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and I also happen to think that I can measure the speed of
a muon as the distance it travels divided by time and I
do not need a scintillator to stop it first, nd the answe I get
is v = x/t =100000m/0.0000022s = 150c, not the 0.998c the
relativist would like it to be with his scintillator brake, which
is mischievous intent to deceive.
Androcles
|
| >| Discovery of a new
| >| orbiting body would require the creation of new epicycles,
| >| whereas the Newtonian theory of gravitation will explain newly
| >| discovered orbits without kludges like epicycles. Copernican and
| >| Keplerian mechanics are easily seen as subcases of the
| >| application of the inverse square gravity law. In fact,
| >| derivation of Kepler's laws is one of the little exercises for
| >| students in a classical mechanics course.
| >
| >Nothing wrong with teaching kids real mechanics.
| >E = M-e.sin(E) is too much for most though.
| >http://www.akiti.ca/KeplerEquation.html
|
| Differential equations are too much for most.
|
| ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
| * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
| * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
13 Aug 2005 03:26:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 02:22:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:se0of1ptoo66id2k359pb68s8ptnipjjdu@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:55:46 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >news:farnf1116uh1r08vf01bb4cfni50khhbb9@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| ><ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >| >news:1123784731.350508.179340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >| >
| >| >| http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmargaret/relativity.htm
| >| >
| >| >"Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
| >| >credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must
| >have
| >| >mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
| >| >
| >| >This is so silly.
| >| >
| >| >Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so
| >much
| >| >so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous
intent.
| >| >
| >| >Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
| >|
| >| The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
| >| descriptive and could not make a prediction.
| >
| >Silliness again.
| >Prediction of planetary positions are the heart of astrology, wrapped
| >in mumbo-jumbo.
| >"When Mars is in the fifth house..."
| >That garbage has been with us for 2000 years, but it could accurately
| >predict when two planets would be in conjunction.
| >Lunar and solar eclipses we always predicted.
| >Comets were not predicted until Halley came along.
|
| Those predictions weren't based on Ptolemaic epicycles. Fr the
| most part they were done by historical observation of previous
| appearances of the phenomenon.
I'm not upholding Ptolemy, but he prediced accurately and you are
guessing.
What exactly did he, or his system, predict?
| >http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
| >
| >Go outside and watch for the next couple of months.
| >I predict you'll see Mars go retrograde. You dont need
| >to stay outside for long, just find Mars and note where it is
| >relative to the fixed stars each night before you go to bed.
| >
|
| I haven't the foggiest what you're trying to tell me here, since
| none of it seems relevant to what I posted.
We are discussing your pov that Ptolemy could not accurately
predict, which he could, and Ian Parker's pov that Copernicus
was acting with mischievous intent, a conclusion I'd be forced
to make if I agreed with his philosophy.
No telescopes allowed, though.
You missed what I said: ptolemy is not predictive of orbits for
new planets, because it is a descriptive system. Measure the
orbit and construct epicycles. You can't even construct the whole
orbit from a few small measurements. Once the orbit is kludged
together, it can predict future positions in the same orbit with
considerable accuracy, right down to occultations of two bodies.
So, yes, Ptolemaic theory could be used to predict eclipses. But
the mayans could also predict eclipses and they didn't have
Ptolemy or epicycles or anything like it.
In Ptolemy, each newly discovered orbiting body has to have a new
set of epicycles invented.
Newtonian gravity can be used to predict entire orbits based on a
few measurents of even new orbits; it's extrapolative.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
13 Aug 2005 04:27:48 PM |
|
|
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:iclsf1hdj5ojidpffcm7iaabac964juv1n@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 02:22:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >news:se0of1ptoo66id2k359pb68s8ptnipjjdu@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:55:46 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >| >news:farnf1116uh1r08vf01bb4cfni50khhbb9@4ax.com...
| >| >| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >| >|
| >| >| >
| >| >| ><ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >| >| >news:1123784731.350508.179340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >| >| >
| >| >| >| http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmargaret/relativity.htm
| >| >| >
| >| >| >"Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable
experimental
| >| >| >credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory
must
| >| >have
| >| >| >mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
| >| >| >
| >| >| >This is so silly.
| >| >| >
| >| >| >Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials,
so
| >| >much
| >| >| >so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous
| >intent.
| >| >| >
| >| >| >Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
| >| >|
| >| >| The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
| >| >| descriptive and could not make a prediction.
| >| >
| >| >Silliness again.
| >| >Prediction of planetary positions are the heart of astrology,
wrapped
| >| >in mumbo-jumbo.
| >| >"When Mars is in the fifth house..."
| >| >That garbage has been with us for 2000 years, but it could
accurately
| >| >predict when two planets would be in conjunction.
| >| >Lunar and solar eclipses we always predicted.
| >| >Comets were not predicted until Halley came along.
| >|
| >| Those predictions weren't based on Ptolemaic epicycles. Fr the
| >| most part they were done by historical observation of previous
| >| appearances of the phenomenon.
| >
| >I'm not upholding Ptolemy, but he prediced accurately and you are
| >guessing.
|
| What exactly did he, or his system, predict?
See:
| >| > http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
and that should explain it to you.
| >| >Go outside and watch for the next couple of months.
| >| >I predict you'll see Mars go retrograde. You dont need
| >| >to stay outside for long, just find Mars and note where it is
| >| >relative to the fixed stars each night before you go to bed.
| >| >
| >|
| >| I haven't the foggiest what you're trying to tell me here, since
| >| none of it seems relevant to what I posted.
| >
| >We are discussing your pov that Ptolemy could not accurately
| >predict, which he could, and Ian Parker's pov that Copernicus
| >was acting with mischievous intent, a conclusion I'd be forced
| >to make if I agreed with his philosophy.
| >No telescopes allowed, though.
|
| You missed what I said: ptolemy is not predictive of orbits for
| new planets, because it is a descriptive system.
Oh... How many new planets did Prolemy miss? I'm discussing facts,
not fairy tales.
Measure the
| orbit and construct epicycles. You can't even construct the whole
| orbit from a few small measurements. Once the orbit is kludged
| together, it can predict future positions in the same orbit with
| considerable accuracy, right down to occultations of two bodies.
|
| So, yes, Ptolemaic theory could be used to predict eclipses. But
| the mayans could also predict eclipses and they didn't have
| Ptolemy or epicycles or anything like it.
Of course they did. They got pyramids from Egypt too.
|
| In Ptolemy, each newly discovered orbiting body has to have a new
| set of epicycles invented.
So what? I didn't say I was defending Ptolemy, I said he could predict
the positions of planets. All that he ever saw.
Androcles.
| Newtonian gravity can be used to predict entire orbits based on a
| few measurents of even new orbits; it's extrapolative.
|
|
| ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
| * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
| * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
15 Aug 2005 02:28:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:27:48 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:
So what? I didn't say I was defending Ptolemy, I said he could predict
the positions of planets. All that he ever saw.
Androcles.
You mean all that he had already worked out. That's kind of a
Duh!
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
15 Aug 2005 01:57:36 PM |
|
|
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:k5r1g1h2bj7nr4ifms81dk3ac104iitt46@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:27:48 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >So what? I didn't say I was defending Ptolemy, I said he could
predict
| >the positions of planets. All that he ever saw.
| >Androcles.
|
| You mean all that he had already worked out. That's kind of a
| Duh!
Yep. Working it out is called "prediction".
Frank L Robeson wrote in "Physics", 1943, Macmillan & Co, New York,
"The method of science consists in observation, investigation and
explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature.When the
materials and circumstances essential to the occurrence have been found
and set in order so that the phenomenon can be reproduced at will, and
the whole transaction has been described accurately, we then say we have
the law of that phenomenon.
A physical law, or principle, is a statement by which we can predict the
effect of a given cause.
The first postulate of science affirms that the same cause always
produces the same effect. Science is based so completely on this belief
that when causes which seem to be the same produce different results,
the causes are re-examined. And invariably it has been found they were
not the same."
Look at this timing and politics.
http://www.startiming.net/cave/Gr-1582.html
Galileo Galilei
(1564-1642)
The hidden motive was that the church thought Galileo was a risk
challenging
Pope Gregory's authority.
Ptolemy may have had the wrong theory, but it worked.
That's why it was successful, and why the Church prosecuted Galileo for
his "heresy".
Those men were not complete fools, just bigots.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
12 Aug 2005 03:19:29 AM |
|
|
The synchrotron accelerates with an RF field. The RF field is set for a
rotational speed of .999 .9999 .995 or so c.
There are things called coincidence couunters where a particle traveels
through one scintillator and then another. This eliminates the
contributions from radioactive minerals etc. The muon I can assure
everyone goes through a cooincidence counter at c as near as no
matter. A CC can tell the difference between 150c and 0.998c. It cant
really tell the difference between .998c and c, so let us say the muon
travells at c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
12 Aug 2005 04:42:54 AM |
|
|
<ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123834769.250630.264660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| The synchrotron accelerates with an RF field. The RF field is set for
a
| rotational speed of .999 .9999 .995 or so c.
|
| There are things called coincidence couunters where a particle
traveels
| through one scintillator and then another. This eliminates the
| contributions from radioactive minerals etc. The muon I can assure
| everyone goes through a cooincidence counter at c as near as no
| matter. A CC can tell the difference between 150c and 0.998c. It cant
| really tell the difference between .998c and c, so let us say the muon
| travells at c.
When the bullet left the rifle it travelled through the air at 2000 mph.
Then it hit the first tree and travelled on to the second tree at 100
mph.
Bullets travel between trees at 100 mph.
Let's say that bullets always travel at 98 mph to fit our theory that
nothing
can exceed 100 mph.
Or shall we say you are with mischievous intent denying solid and
undeniable
data that special relativity is a load of crap, and I'm not interested
in your
spiral accelerators that are designed to only go as a fast as you want
them too.
You can say the muon travels at c all you want to, but I say it travels
at
150c, and that you have mischievous intent to delay the advance of
astronomy
and physics.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
12 Aug 2005 08:58:00 AM |
|
|
You can say the muon travels at c all you want to, but I say it travels
at
150c, and that you have mischievous intent to delay the advance of
astronomy
and physics.
It has been measured to around c by coincidence counters.
The frequency of a Synchrotron is very precise hence you can say .994c
or whatever.
Experiment is the justification for scientific statements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
12 Aug 2005 09:22:21 AM |
|
|
<ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123855080.191319.23940@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| You can say the muon travels at c all you want to, but I say it
travels
| at
| 150c, and that you have mischievous intent to delay the advance of
| astronomy
| and physics.
|
| It has been measured to around c by coincidence counters.
So the coincidence counter affected it.
Ever heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
Maybe Heisenberg was being mischievious.
|
| The frequency of a Synchrotron is very precise hence you can say .994c
| or whatever.
What does a synchrotron have to do with measuring the speed of a muon
from upper atmsosphere to ground level in 2.2 microseconds?
If you can't handle v = x/t, you certainly can't handle the equations
of a synchrotron.
| Experiment is the justification for scientific statements.
I agree. So I'm making the scientific statement that the speed
of a feral muon is 150c, whatever your "theory" says, and I don't
care how many times you measure it your way, I do it the right way.
If you wish to challenge that, show cause. I'll allow an error bound
of 10c to 300c.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
13 Aug 2005 03:29:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:22:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:
So the coincidence counter affected it.
Ever heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
Maybe Heisenberg was being mischievious.
You've obviously only heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle without understanding it: it has nothing whatsoever to
do with something being affected by the measurement.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
13 Aug 2005 04:31:29 PM |
|
|
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qtlsf1ht2cotpkpui1vfa4cig5c9hu5doc@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:22:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
|
| >So the coincidence counter affected it.
| >Ever heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
| >Maybe Heisenberg was being mischievious.
|
| You've obviously only heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
| Principle without understanding it: it has nothing whatsoever to
| do with something being affected by the measurement.
Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
Have a nice day at the muon vs photon races and let me know who wins,
but let's have a level playing field. Length contract and time dilate
the
photon as well.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
15 Aug 2005 02:29:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:31:29 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qtlsf1ht2cotpkpui1vfa4cig5c9hu5doc@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:22:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >So the coincidence counter affected it.
| >Ever heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
| >Maybe Heisenberg was being mischievious.
|
| You've obviously only heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
| Principle without understanding it: it has nothing whatsoever to
| do with something being affected by the measurement.
Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
I do understand the HUP, and you don't.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
15 Aug 2005 02:20:55 PM |
|
|
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:q7r1g1t0lcg2o0dr4qcd9on41ttkgmdgn8@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:31:29 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >news:qtlsf1ht2cotpkpui1vfa4cig5c9hu5doc@4ax.com...
| >| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:22:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >|
| >| >So the coincidence counter affected it.
| >| >Ever heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
| >| >Maybe Heisenberg was being mischievious.
| >|
| >| You've obviously only heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
| >| Principle without understanding it: it has nothing whatsoever to
| >| do with something being affected by the measurement.
| >
| >Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
|
| I do understand the HUP, and you don't.
The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory, the
more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the
visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other
words it's crap.
--Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926
I knew of [Heisenberg's] theory, of course, but I felt discouraged, not
to say repelled, by the methods of transcendental algebra, which
appeared difficult to me, and by the lack of visualizability.
--Schrödinger in 1926
Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
Nothing has changed much. <shrug>
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
15 Aug 2005 05:14:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:20:55 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:q7r1g1t0lcg2o0dr4qcd9on41ttkgmdgn8@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:31:29 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >news:qtlsf1ht2cotpkpui1vfa4cig5c9hu5doc@4ax.com...
| >| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:22:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >|
| >| >So the coincidence counter affected it.
| >| >Ever heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
| >| >Maybe Heisenberg was being mischievious.
| >|
| >| You've obviously only heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
| >| Principle without understanding it: it has nothing whatsoever to
| >| do with something being affected by the measurement.
| >
| >Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
|
| I do understand the HUP, and you don't.
The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory, the
more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the
visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other
words it's crap.
--Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926
I'm not sure what that has to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle.
I knew of [Heisenberg's] theory, of course, but I felt
discouraged, not
to say repelled, by the methods of transcendental algebra, which
appeared difficult to me, and by the lack of visualizability.
--Schrödinger in 1926
Fascinating. But what has this to do with understanding the
basics of the Heisnber uncertainty Principle.
Again: The HUP has nothing to do with a measuement disturbing the
system.
Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
Nothing has changed much. <shrug>
I even understand v = dx/dt and a = dv/dt = dx2/d2x. You know,
this is trivial, and the fact that you think v = x/t is important
says worlds about you.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
15 Aug 2005 04:26:03 PM |
|
|
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8k42g1d34j7hbjpl9u9mnf2qgoq78udnjb@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:20:55 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >news:q7r1g1t0lcg2o0dr4qcd9on41ttkgmdgn8@4ax.com...
| >| On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:31:29 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >| >news:qtlsf1ht2cotpkpui1vfa4cig5c9hu5doc@4ax.com...
| >| >| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:22:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >| >|
| >| >| >So the coincidence counter affected it.
| >| >| >Ever heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
| >| >| >Maybe Heisenberg was being mischievious.
| >| >|
| >| >| You've obviously only heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
| >| >| Principle without understanding it: it has nothing whatsoever to
| >| >| do with something being affected by the measurement.
| >| >
| >| >Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
| >|
| >| I do understand the HUP, and you don't.
| >
| >The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory,
the
| >more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the
| >visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other
| >words it's crap.
| >
| >--Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926
|
| I'm not sure what that has to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty
| Principle.
| >
| I knew of [Heisenberg's] theory, of course, but I felt
| >discouraged, not
| >to say repelled, by the methods of transcendental algebra, which
| >appeared difficult to me, and by the lack of visualizability.
| >--Schrödinger in 1926
|
| Fascinating. But what has this to do with understanding the
| basics of the Heisnber uncertainty Principle.
|
| Again: The HUP has nothing to do with a measuement disturbing the
| system.
So you don't understand the HUP. <shrug>
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
"In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things
exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a
particle has momemtum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world,
I would not be able to measure p and x precisely. There is an
uncertainty associated with each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and
dx, which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This
is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb
the system. "
Of course Heinsenberg was talking about hitting an atom with a photon,
not slowing a muon with a scintillator paddle, but it amounts to the
same thing, the measurement disturbs the result.
|
| >Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
| >Nothing has changed much. <shrug>
|
| I even understand v = dx/dt and a = dv/dt = dx2/d2x. You know,
| this is trivial, and the fact that you think v = x/t is important
| says worlds about you.
We can integrate dx/dt , and for a CONSTANT velocity dx/dt = x/t
Personal abuse will not help you in any way, the fact that you think
v = x/t is unimportant says worlds about you.
Learn the HUP and come back when you have.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
15 Aug 2005 06:15:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:26:03 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8k42g1d34j7hbjpl9u9mnf2qgoq78udnjb@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:20:55 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >news:q7r1g1t0lcg2o0dr4qcd9on41ttkgmdgn8@4ax.com...
| >| On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:31:29 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >| >news:qtlsf1ht2cotpkpui1vfa4cig5c9hu5doc@4ax.com...
| >| >| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:22:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| >| >| MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >| >|
| >| >| >So the coincidence counter affected it.
| >| >| >Ever heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
| >| >| >Maybe Heisenberg was being mischievious.
| >| >|
| >| >| You've obviously only heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
| >| >| Principle without understanding it: it has nothing whatsoever to
| >| >| do with something being affected by the measurement.
| >| >
| >| >Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
| >|
| >| I do understand the HUP, and you don't.
| >
| >The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory,
the
| >more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the
| >visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other
| >words it's crap.
| >
| >--Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926
|
| I'm not sure what that has to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty
| Principle.
| >
| I knew of [Heisenberg's] theory, of course, but I felt
| >discouraged, not
| >to say repelled, by the methods of transcendental algebra, which
| >appeared difficult to me, and by the lack of visualizability.
| >--Schrödinger in 1926
|
| Fascinating. But what has this to do with understanding the
| basics of the Heisnber uncertainty Principle.
|
| Again: The HUP has nothing to do with a measuement disturbing the
| system.
So you don't understand the HUP. <shrug>
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
"In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things
exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a
particle has momemtum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world,
I would not be able to measure p and x precisely. There is an
uncertainty associated with each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and
dx, which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This
is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb
the system. "
Read it again, carefully. It does not say the system is disturbed
by the attempt to measure it. It says there is an uncertainty in
any measurement; it does not say it is caused by the attempt to
measure.
Of course Heinsenberg was talking about hitting an atom with a photon,
No. he wasn't. He was quantumizing an uncertainty principle that
applies to classical waves.
not slowing a muon with a scintillator paddle, but it amounts to the
same thing, the measurement disturbs the result.
The measurement may, in fact, disturb the results, but that is
NOT the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
|
| >Ok, so you don't understand v = x/t.
| >Nothing has changed much. <shrug>
|
| I even understand v = dx/dt and a = dv/dt = dx2/d2x. You know,
| this is trivial, and the fact that you think v = x/t is important
| says worlds about you.
We can integrate dx/dt , and for a CONSTANT velocity dx/dt = x/t
Well, duh. No *****.
Personal abuse will not help you in any way, the fact that you think
\>v = x/t is unimportant says worlds about you.
Learn the HUP and come back when you have.
I already took quantum mechanics on my way to my physics degree.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and SoftX-Rays |
17 Aug 2005 01:21:19 AM |
|
|
Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:26:03 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
"In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things
exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a
particle has momemtum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world,
I would not be able to measure p and x precisely. There is an
uncertainty associated with each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and
dx, which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This
is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb
the system. "
Read it again, carefully. It does not say the system is disturbed
by the attempt to measure it. It says there is an uncertainty in
any measurement; it does not say it is caused by the attempt to
measure.
Then what does his last sentence mean?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
17 Aug 2005 11:43:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:21:19 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:26:03 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
"In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things
exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a
particle has momemtum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world,
I would not be able to measure p and x precisely. There is an
uncertainty associated with each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and
dx, which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This
is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb
the system. "
Read it again, carefully. It does not say the system is disturbed
by the attempt to measure it. It says there is an uncertainty in
any measurement; it does not say it is caused by the attempt to
measure.
Then what does his last sentence mean?
Oh, dear. I didn't read carefully enough myself, did I.
He's wrong. I hope he's not a physics major.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
17 Aug 2005 12:08:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:43:21 -0700, Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:21:19 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:26:03 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
"In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things
exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a
particle has momemtum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world,
I would not be able to measure p and x precisely. There is an
uncertainty associated with each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and
dx, which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This
is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb
the system. "
Read it again, carefully. It does not say the system is disturbed
by the attempt to measure it. It says there is an uncertainty in
any measurement; it does not say it is caused by the attempt to
measure.
Then what does his last sentence mean?
Oh, dear. I didn't read carefully enough myself, did I.
He's wrong. I hope he's not a physics major.
Huh. he seems to be a professor in the physics department.
He's still wrong, and he should realize it from the formulation
of the HUP he shows on that web page, which has nothing to do
with interference from measurements.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
17 Aug 2005 01:40:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:08:31 -0700, Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:43:21 -0700, Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:21:19 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:26:03 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
"In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things
exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a
particle has momemtum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world,
I would not be able to measure p and x precisely. There is an
uncertainty associated with each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and
dx, which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This
is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb
the system. "
Read it again, carefully. It does not say the system is disturbed
by the attempt to measure it. It says there is an uncertainty in
any measurement; it does not say it is caused by the attempt to
measure.
Then what does his last sentence mean?
Oh, dear. I didn't read carefully enough myself, did I.
He's wrong. I hope he's not a physics major.
Huh. he seems to be a professor in the physics department.
He's still wrong, and he should realize it from the formulation
of the HUP he shows on that web page, which has nothing to do
with interference from measurements.
I have contacted Dr Imamura and he has responded:
Dear David,
I re-read the page and I can see your concern. I was
sloppy and mixed two ideas in the discussion of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and gave a confused
idea of the nature of the Uncertainty Principle.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
17 Aug 2005 04:20:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:40:11 -0700, Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:08:31 -0700, Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:43:21 -0700, Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:21:19 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:26:03 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
"In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things
exactly breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a
particle has momemtum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world,
I would not be able to measure p and x precisely. There is an
uncertainty associated with each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and
dx, which I can never get rid of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This
is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb
the system. "
Read it again, carefully. It does not say the system is disturbed
by the attempt to measure it. It says there is an uncertainty in
any measurement; it does not say it is caused by the attempt to
measure.
Then what does his last sentence mean?
Oh, dear. I didn't read carefully enough myself, did I.
He's wrong. I hope he's not a physics major.
Huh. he seems to be a professor in the physics department.
He's still wrong, and he should realize it from the formulation
of the HUP he shows on that web page, which has nothing to do
with interference from measurements.
I have contacted Dr Imamura and he has responded:
Dear David,
I re-read the page and I can see your concern. I was
sloppy and mixed two ideas in the discussion of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and gave a confused
idea of the nature of the Uncertainty Principle.
Dr Imamura tells me that he has revised the web page in question,
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html. I see he has
removed the offending sentence, "This is due to the fact that
whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb the system."
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
17 Aug 2005 12:02:40 PM |
|
|
This should shed some photons on the subject:
The Metasystem Transition Subsequent to the Formation of the Global
Brain
There seems to be a consensus on these pages that Earth will become a
single meta-organism as the result of a metasystem transition (MST) of
the people and machines now present. The MST subsequent to that is the
Earth becoming one node in a galactic system of living planets. A key
feature of the MST is that the systems which unite to form the
metasystem give up mobility in exchange for establishing control and
communication links among themselves, communication will dominate over
physical visitations. Space travel is extremely difficult, but
communication at the speed of light is easy. The formation of the
Global Organism should have the effect of pushing the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) to its ultimate limit as the Earth
seeks out communication partners. We could either intercept cross talk
between other planets, or receive transmissions from nodes broadcasting
the "Encyclopedia Galactica" omnidirectionally. Private discussions
could be established between fairly close pairs of nodes, with the
understanding that such two-way conversation has long turn- around
times. Virtual reality information could be shared making any actual
travel unnecessary. Software processes could be exchanged which would
substitute for actual mass transference. In general, using our
intelligence we will find ways around the limitations the Universe
imposes upon us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Synchrotron Radiation - The production of Vacuum UV and Soft X-Rays |
17 Aug 2005 12:51:52 PM |
|
|
Virtual reality information could be shared making any actual
travel unnecessary.
In fact travel on Earth will be pointeless (mostly) but travel to Mars
(or at least LMO) will be necessary because of time delays. The exact
opposite is the case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
