Re: [physicsnorthyork] Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment

From: Aaron
Sent on: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:39 PM
All Concerned:

Please calm down. I hope you all realize that when it comes to the realm of Theoretical Physics a lot can go, and a lot of opinions and views are expressed and explored. The Wheeler-Feynman time-symmetric theory is an incomplete interpretation of Electrodynamics. I don't honestly think Feynman thought this would have been a complete fix to the problems in Classical physics, Electrodynamics, and Quantum Electrodynamics. Physicists often do very complicated thought experiments with the hope of spinning off an idea or two which may be useful or at least inspire an idea in others or at the bare minimum cause some healthy discussion.

I once helped write a paper on a linearization of gravity, which got published. Does gravity behave in a linear way? No, but perhaps it does in a different universe or dimension. It was also just a worth while thought experiment.

Just last week I was in a lecture where a young prof. from the Perimeter institute suggested that photons may in fact have an extraordinarily small mass, which could explain a number of measurable effects we see in the laboratory and astronomical observations. Could he be correct? Maybe, but it would also mean we would have to re-write a whole lot of physics and basically all of string theory is wrong because I have yet to see a string theory where gravitrons are derived with non-zero mass. 

Wheeler-Feynman, hidden variables, to who knows. I don't even think Feynman could give you a really compelling argument for or against any of this. 

-Aaron


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Gary Graham <[address removed]> wrote:
You seem to have ignored almost everything I said. Did you even look up Wheeler-Feynman? Also, your sarcasm ("Where have I been that I missed such a profound discovery?") is uncalled for. Such cheap tactics have no intellectual content whatsoever; they're a little bit like barking. I thought we were above that here.
 
Not interested in corresponding further with you.
 
If anyone out there would like to have a more meaningful discussion, pls, I welcome it. Personal attacks, however, are unwelcome.

 

From: [address removed]

Subject: Re: [physicsnorthyork] Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment
To: [address removed]
Date: Wed, 13 Nov[masked]:54:27 -0500


"Radiative propagation involves waves travelling backwards in time"?
Where have I been that I missed such a profound discovery?
Anyway, like I said, since I know of nothing travelling backwards in time, and since I know scientific knowledge has often been unaware of subtle variables, I stand by my opinion. However, if you have solid evidence for anything travelling backwards in time, it would make for an interesting NYPhysics meeting!

Sent from my iPod

On[masked], at 12:51, Gary Graham <[address removed]> wrote:

The most commonly accepted model for radiative propagation involves waves travelling backwards in time (see Wheeler-Feynman).

Apart from saying you "know of no evidence" of backwards time travel, which is I think something of an argument (though not a very compelling one), you have merely repeated what you said in the first post: there you say other explanations (such as hidden variables) are "more plausible," here you say that backwards time travel explanations are "less likely" (presumably than your hidden variables suggestion). Sorry to be a stickler, but you really haven't answered the question (except for the "no evidence" part, which is false).

You seem to be appealing to something like intuition, or common sense. But these things can both be misleading, or just plain wrong, especially in the realm of theoretical physics, as I'm sure you know. Something a little more substantial is required, I think.

You and Bohm may be right about hidden variables, of course, but Bohm's model poses its own challenges: it violates ontological parsimony, for example, in a way that the time travel model doesn't. My point is that your criterion for preferring the former over the latter isn't very scientific: it seems to me like something of an unjustified bias.

Pls understand, this isn't a personal attack at all, just a criticism of your position.


Sent from my iPad

On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:25 PM, "David" <[address removed]> wrote:

Travelling back in time seems less likely than the photon having properties that we do not understand.

Historically, there have been countless situations where we did not understand what was going on regarding some phenomenon. 
I do not know of any evidence for anything going back in time.

Therefore, I think some unknown factor is a more plausible explanation than the photon going back in time. 
Dave :)

Sent from my iPod

On[masked], at 12:15, Gary Graham <[address removed]> wrote:

Very interested in knowing why you say "more plausible." I'm not being frivolous, I really want to know.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "David" <[address removed]> wrote:

The delayed choice results suggests that the photon has hidden variables that make it appear as a particle when there is no beam splitter, and makes it appear as a wave when there is a beam splitter.
This seems more plausible than the idea that by adding the beam splitter the photon goes back in time and becomes a wave.
Cheers,
Dave
PS. Very, very interesting stuff. David Bohm has suggestions in his book 'Causality and Chance in the New Physics' which address this issue. Maybe we should all read his book and then discuss?
----- Original Message -----
From: Mohsen
To:




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by David ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about David, visit his/her member profile
To report abuse or block this person, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Gary Graham ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about Gary Graham, visit his/her member profile
To report abuse or block this person, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by David ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about David, visit his/her member profile
To report abuse or block this person, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Gary Graham ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about Gary Graham, visit his/her member profile
To report abuse or block this person, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy