For a split second there I thought you were referring to this notorious experiment:
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
Quantum entanglement seems to, but HTF they can determine that is a mystery to me at least.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
Cursitor Doom wrote in news:pst10j$srp$7@dont- email.me:
Wait till you 'look at' slow light.
Well mostly it's just counting photons. Simple 'in theory'.
George H.
I've never done any slow light experiments, but I don't think it's much of a mystery. Light slows down going through anything. If you send it through something with a large and complex index of refraction you can get all sorts of weird behavior. And this happens big time near an atomic resonance. Mind you I'm not saying that the details of what is going on is simple.
George H.
which is now largely discredited because the study wasn't at all well-controlled/"blinded" to modern standards; that is to say a number of the subjects giving shocks were aware that the person they were giving them to was an actor and not another test subject like themselves
If you've talked to any guys who were officers or NCOs of infantry in e.g. Vietnam what they will often have to say about many of the young men under their command in that conflict is that they weren't at all good about following instructions exactly, a lot had the confidence of youth and thought they knew it all and would often do their own thing.
To their family's and commanding officer's forever sadness not following instructions exactly and doing your own thing in wartime is often a very good way to get killed
George Herold wrote in news:f8981e8e-9f5f-4730- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Look... Imagine two giant hershey's kisses together with their bottoms facing each other.
Think of that as the dark matter mass around our galaxy of 'hard matter', which is but a thin membrane sandwiched between the two.
Then picture strings of dark matter stretched between these 'nodes' from galaxy to galaxy.
We are but a thin membrane of 'matter' in the giant scheme of things. The mass that is the dark matter in the universe is a much larger animal than we have thus far imagined.
The dual vortex thing is also why our galaxy is chiral in nature.
We reside in a slurry between the two, polarized globes of low interaction dark matter.
We need to look at it as being hundreds of thousands of times larger than 'us'. Then respin the math and watch it fall into place.
I guess you have no grasp of the E8 series either, eh?
I believe that is the sticky wicket, isn't it? Just like string theory, it can't really be tested so much.
Rick C.
Tesla referral code -
I'm just proposing launching corner cube reflectors to check. (maybe it would be better to launch light sources) For me, I always let the data guide my thinking. (no data, no thinking :^) George H.
Entanglement is now table top physics, available at many university student labs.
George H.
The experiment isn't difficult. Fire an entangled pair in opposite directions, run through polarizers, hit two single-photon detectors, play with the polarizers and look at the pulses, and impossible things happen.
You can use Pockels Cells to orient the polarizers after the pair is launched, but you don't really need to do that.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement
I did it setting polarizers by hand/eye. ~ 1 degree +/- (the polarizer, zero was checked.)
A worm drive gizmo would be more accurate.
George H.
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:e89b24a8-b066-4129-9a30- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
This as stupid a remark as his could ever have been, you idiot.
It does eventually get killed off or ignored. One heuristic I recall is that roughly 10% of everything in the peer reviewed literature is wrong or contains at least one serious mistake - the problem is finding it. How much worse do you reckon it is today?
Lots of bad stuff gets quietly ignored, never quoted again and forgotten. The better and good stuff gets its mistakes corrected in later papers that reference it and address its shortcomings.
I blame spell checkers and txting for that.
And of course the journals want to publish enough stuff to stay in business.
It is ultimately self correcting in that all someone has to do is demonstrate a reproducible experiment that cannot be explained by the prevailing established theories and everything is up for grabs again.
Such experiments and theoretical breakthroughs occur on average every couple of hundred years - given quantum theory and relativity last century I think we may have to wait quite a while for another major paradigm shift in physics brought on by clever experimentalists.
I'd like to believe that string theory might be a flyer (one of my peer group is a world leading string theorist) but I suspect that whilst the mathematics may be beautiful as a physical theory it is so flexible that it has at present no useful predictive power. But things could change overnight if they made the right sort of theoretical breakthrough. It is quite often that when some weird abstract pure mathematics gets used to solve physics problems than new insights suddenly become obvious.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
I only review for society journals, not commercial ones.
That's true in the foundations, but generally not elsewhere. You can make a whole career out of publishing stuff that makes a solid contribution but that nobody ever bothers to try to reproduce.
Reproducing other people's work reduces the amount of time you have to publish your own, and you get little or no credit for doing it. What has really been corrosive is the exclusive push for originality. A youngster doesn't know enough yet to do valuable original work, because at the current state of technology it's too hard. Thus I get papers like one recent one, which purported to be an original method for measuring the turbidity of waste water. (It was actually one of the better ones, but not good.)
Its great breakthrough was to use a rectangular duct and look through it on four optical paths. Two LEDs are spaced out on one wall and two photodiodes on the other. By switching sources, they look at two perpendicular and two diagonal paths, and claim that this allows them to cancel out the effects of window fouling.
Why is this not a good paper? Two reasons: first, it doesn't work, because the diagonal paths go through the window fouling diagonally as well as the water, so no cancellation is possible. Second, I recognized that system from a book that I have on my shelf, circa 2000. (It's "Photodetection and Measurement" by Mark Johnson. His system uses perpendicular paths of different lengths, which does work.)
I've also been sent a couple of papers that claimed to invent things I published 25 years or so before. ;) That I don't mind so much--as I say, it's hard for a beginner to find things simple enough to build, so I let those ones slide. (At least I knew they worked.)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant
Maybe optics is different but some of the physics and chemistry journals earn considerable sums for their publishers (likewise for colloquium proceedings). Reidel seemed to do OK publishing Astrophysics & Space Science library summary papers from conferences too.
Depends whether or not it later becomes important. I knew the guys who worked on the early polyacetylene semiconductors back when they were black gunge that lasted 10 minutes on a good day. The same group went on to perfect OLEDs after a hell of a lot of incremental improvements.
The other problem in some fields is that many big projects require a huge number of collaborators in big science.
It is often the case that if you know where to look the same idea has been covered previously in an unrelated field. Modern computer indexing has changed the game in terms of finding obscure prior art.
Fair enough.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
Oh, sure, but I'm not volunteering my time to help out a for-profit journal.
Well, the OLED field got pretty big pretty fast, so it wasn't just one group. IBM had a biggish OLED effort back in the late '90s.
Yup. Give me an optical table, an interesting problem, and somebody to sign my purchase reqs any day. (With some of the licensing deals we're trying to close at the moment, I may actually get back to doing that.)
That's pardonable, sure, but doesn't apply in this case.
Johnson's book is about half filled with turbidity sensing examples, because he used to be the chief scientist for a major water utility in the UK, and it's one of the go-to references for low speed photodetection systems, especially if you're a student with a photodiode in one hand, a data acq system in the other, and no idea what to put in the middle. (Which is most of them.)
So it's a bit like taking a circuit out of AoE that you don't understand, breaking it, and then publishing the result, with data of very dubious quality. (These guys had some data, but since the measurement could never have worked in the presence of fouling, it didn't show what they claimed.);
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant
Phil Hobbs wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:
IBM had an $11k display that had individual fiber elements for each of 9 million pixels, all fired by a chip. That chip may have been OLED.
I found it once but was unable to in my search. I think it was the t220.
If you want chapter nad verse and are prepared to learn the mathematics then Gravitation by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler is still as good as any - but be warned it isn't an easy read and exerts its own gravitational force - do not drop it on your foot or you will be sorry!>>
You have to bear in mind that Galilean/Newtonian dynamics lasted around
3-400 years before there were observations precise enough to find fault with their predictions. Twenty years is nothing really.I'm hoping that the mathematicians will eventually turn up something that can be tested for experimentally although the timescale for them to do that could still be quite long.
It probably does but there are now galaxies been observed with almost no CDM which rather spoils the model somewhat.
The extent to which CDM clumps with ordinary matter is something of an unknown. The fact that it essentially almost never interracts with ordinary baryonic matter or electromagnetic radiation except through gravitation makes it incredibily difficult to detect.
If you were serious the simplest passive test particle would be something like a cube corner reflector - much like the devices hung on sailing ships masts to increase their radar cross section.
Your problem will be in computing the expected gravitational forces from nearby stars (and potentially invisible to us nearby Oort cloud comets) on your probe out at that sort of distance.
The fundamental point is that the stars in most galaxies are moving around the central hub far too fast to be held in place only by the matter that we can actually see. There has to be something else and to fit the radial velocity dispersion it has to be a distributed mass (or you tweak the laws of gravity a la MOND).
I think MOND feels like a one trick pony. YMMV
-- Regards, Martin Brown
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.