Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Physicists manage to 'breed' Schrodinger's cat in breakthrough that could help explain the quantum world
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet ... -s-cat-breakthrough-study.html
Published: May 2, 2017
Author: Cheyenne MacDonald
Post Date: 2017-05-02 07:39:35 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 24852
Comments: 75
Scientists have developed a way to 'breed' Schrodinger's hypothetical cat in a breakthrough experiment that could bridge the gap between the quantum and the visible - or classical - worlds. The cat in the famous thought experiment can be alive and dead at the same time, in a quantum phenomenon known as superposition. But, whether this effect translates to larger objects has long remained a mystery. Physicists have now created a way to amplify pairs of classical states of light to generate 'enlarged' cats, in effort to uncover the limit (if there is one) of the quantum world. 'One of the fundamental questions of physics is the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds,' says CIFAR Quantum Information Science Fellow Alexander Lvovsky. 'Can quantum phenomena, provided ideal conditions, be observed in macroscopic objects? 'Theory gives no answer to this question – maybe there is no such boundary. 'What we need is a tool that will probe it.' In the new experiment, the researchers 'bred' the physical analogue of the Schrodinger cat. This, in this case, is the superposition of two coherent light waves, in which the fields of the electromagnetic waves point in opposite directions at once. Based on an idea first proposed over a decade ago by researchers in Australia, the team bred these states to create optical 'cats' of higher amplitudes. 'In essence, we cause interference of two 'cats' on a beam splitter,' said Anastasia Pushkina, co-author and University of Calgary graduate student. 'This leads to an entangled state in the two output channels of that beam splitter. 'In one of these channels, a special detector is placed. 'In the event this detector shows a certain result, a 'cat' is born in the second output whose energy is more than twice that of the initial one.' Doing this, the researchers converted a pair of negative squeezed 'cats' of amplitude 1.15 to a single positive 'cat' of amplitude 1.85. Doing this, the researchers converted a pair of negative squeezed 'cats' of amplitude 1.15 to a single positive 'cat' of amplitude 1.85. Entangled particles are illustrated above Over the course of the experiment, they generated several thousand of these enlarged cats. According to the researchers the experiment has implications for future work in quantum communication, teleportation, and cryptography. 'It is important that the procedure can be repeated: new 'cats' can, in turn, be overlapped on a beam splitter, producing one with even higher energy, and so on,' says lead author Demid Sychev, a graduate student from the Russian Quantum Center and the Moscow State Pedagogical University. 'Thus, it is possible to push the boundaries of the quantum world step by step, and eventually to understand whether it has a limit.' Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment created by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. In the hypothetical experiment a cat is placed in a sealed box next to a radioactive sample, a Geiger counter, and a bottle of poison. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, releasing the poison and killing the cat, until the box is opened. This means the cat is both dead and alive inside the box, a mixture of both states, until the box is opened. 'One of the fundamental questions of physics is the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds,' says CIFAR Quantum Information Science Fellow Alexander Lvovsky. 'Can quantum phenomena, provided ideal conditions, be observed in macroscopic objects? 'Theory gives no answer to this question – maybe there is no such boundary. 'What we need is a tool that will probe it.' In the new experiment, the researchers 'bred' the physical analogue of the Schrodinger cat. This, in this case, is the superposition of two coherent light waves, in which the fields of the electromagnetic waves point in opposite directions at once. Based on an idea first proposed over a decade ago by researchers in Australia, the team bred these states to create optical 'cats' of higher amplitudes.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-35) not displayed.
.
.
.
#36. To: redleghunter (#35)
(Edited)
Only to people who think Newton and Einstein were ignorant. : ) Who knew you could get this many replies on a physics thread at LF? LOL
We don't know if so called "gravity" does exist. What we know is that concept of gravity helps up to organize and visualize some data or stuff. We know nothing. BTW, I studied continental philosophy at MA level, beside natural science at MS level. In addition I did a lot of my own thinking what is more important. "His reputation as a philosopher, literally meaning 'a lover of wisdom', soon spread all over Athens and beyond. When told that the Oracle of Delphi had revealed to one of his friends that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens, he responded not by boasting or celebrating, but by trying to prove the Oracle wrong. So Socrates decided he would try and find out if anyone knew what was truly worthwhile in life, because anyone who knew that would surely be wiser than him. He set about questioning everyone he could find, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer. Instead they all pretended to know something they clearly did not. Finally he realized the Oracle might be right after all. He was the wisest man in Athens because he alone was prepared to admit his own ignorance rather than pretend to know something he did not. "
We know we can solve a great many practical problems in astronomy and space flight using this awful "gravity" idea. It underpins so much of physics that I can't begin to list its uses in theoretical constructs vital to the entire field. I'd like to see you name some top-rank physicists in the last 300 years who don't believe in this #FakeGravity thing.
This is what I mean. Nothing more nothing less. Do you really need to lean on an authority? OK, one example: "University of Amsterdam string theorist Erik Verlinde provided a totally new perspective for understanding the effect that has been called gravity. He is convinced that it is not an independent force at all." https://www.icr.org/article/5548/ Or read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Personally I am partial to the Arthur Schopenhauer answer to Kant. Or at least 'As if' approach of Hans Vaihinger.
No string theorist has ever produced a single piece of new theoretical work that is widely accepted or that has an experimental demonstration of its merit. However, practical applications of gravity have yielded countless theoretical advances (starting with Newton and Einstein and all the physics stars) and has had its merits demonstrated in experiments and real-world applications like space flight. OTOH, you can find a string theory flake who will say anything. Apparently, you have. You may as well tell me that you found someone on Infowars or a UFO site that doesn't believe in that darned #FakeGravity. This discussion is so stupid that I can feel it killing my brain cells just to have to type this.
BTW, Verlinde is not a gravity skeptic. He does offer a theory called entropic gravity. But he is still a believer in that whole #FakeGravity thing you claim is wrong. "At its simplest, the theory holds that when gravity becomes vanishingly weak—levels seen only at interstellar distances—it diverges from its classically understood nature and its strength begins to decay linearly with distance from a mass." I would agree with this and have always considered gravity in this way. You can look back on this thread a ways and find my post about gravity becoming infinitesimal at intersteallar distances (but not within a solar system). He hasn't proved his theory of gravity but it seems likely an improvement on classical ideas about gravity which do still have problems. It seems that Verlinde's ideas about gravity allow for all the phenomena we already observe but force gravity to behave according to the laws of thermodynamics more thoroughly than classical Newtonian ideas about gravity. Verlinde does believe in that #FakeGravity, at least his own version of it.
I don't believe in gravity as an independent force. It is the effect of acceleration, and it is experienced on physical objects. There is no gravity reaching across space.
Isaac Newton: "It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left open to the consideration of my readers."
Well, maybe Newton was right. Then again, magnetism is conveyed through space without the movement of particles. I myself think that it is the expansion of matter in space that causes the effects we call gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces. One phenomenon, expansion, accounts for all of these four "fundamental" forces. I do not think, as Newton appears to have, that gravity must be carried by "gravitons" or any similar particle. But who cares what I think. Time may tell.
Science historians do not believe an apple ever fell on Newton's head. It's a myth, like George Washington and the cherry tree.
That is why there is no apple on the picture.
Or George Washington refusing the Crown. Or America almost being a German-speaking country, by a few votes difference. Or Texas having a right to secede. Or FDR planning Pearl Harbor. Or the Confederacy being on the verge of abolishing slavery. People believe what they want to believe.
I think there is one aspect of gravity that is not understood, and that is the speed at which one body affects another body. It's significant because as bodies move around each other at great distances, if the effect traveled at the speed of light, it would be too slow to account for normal orbital observations. I.e. the sun is 8 light minutes away from the earth, and is moving through space. If the earth orbited around where the sun was 8 minutes ago instead of where it is at the same moment of time, we wouldn't be having this conversation because life wouldn't exist on earth. If gravitons exist, they travel instantly, far faster than light. So I think it's apparent that gravitons, as particles, don't exist. I think it obvious that space is not "nothing", but is rather a fabric of sorts. Ergo, there is no such things as a true vacuum within our universe. Space is a conduit of mass just as a pipe is a conduit of fluids.
It's obvious to you that space is a "fabric", that isn't composed of anything. It's obvious to me that there is no fabric of space. That space is literal non-existence. The no- existence of matter in a place makes that place space. (Space is, of course, full of energy particles, so it is not empty. I guess a fuller definition of space would be the complete void between energy particles, since they also take up space.) The earth and Sun spiral forward about them for the same reason that everything else does - they were originally cast that way, and there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. They are both in forward motion corkscrewing through space at a sufficient velocity that they neither expand into each other (and crash) or spiral apart (which would happen if the velocities of either were different. But this is all about a subject that isn't important in any practical sense, so I think I'll let it go for now.
That I did not say. Space is composed of something, but not matter. I would be content calling this fabric of whatever sort it is "space", and I would hold that space is the conduit of gravity in addition to matter, so there is something there, even if that something is not matter. Einstein said gravity warps this space, and it seems intuitive that anything that can be warped must consist of *something*. I find that observation of Einstein reasonable. Consider a thought experiment of two weights held together by a spring. If the contraption is not spinning, the spring would be fully contracted, but if it was spinning in space, the spring would be stretched. Now consider that this contraption was the only object in the universe, in which case it would not be possible to measure any spin because there would be no other objects in the universe by which to measure the speed of spin. In such a case, would it be possible for the spring to be stretched indicating centrifugal force, or not possible? If it is possible for these weights to be wanting to fly away from one another, then it seems clear that the space in which it exists must consist of some type of fabric by which the objects spin can, in fact, be measured, independent of any other objects in space. I see this as philosophical proof that space *must* be a fabric/conduit of whatever sort. I'm late to the party I guess, but fair enough.
No, this is interesting. To start, sure there is something in space: it's full of energy particles. Stick a photographic negative out there, and it will rapidly bleach. Space is chock full of energy particles. It's only a vacuum with regards to particles of matter. In truth, "space" is a vast sea of energy particles, a plasma of low density. Rigorously speaking, though, space itself is really the complete void between those energy particles, and it exists with objects (inside of the molecules and atoms) as well as outside the atmosphere. Does that have a "fabric"? When speaking of pure space as black void, then no, it can't, because there's nothing there to make a fabric. But if one speaks of the attenuated energy plasma that fills space, then sure, THAT has a structure to it, however chaotic.
No, I suspect you don't catch my meaning. You seem to be of the impression that the "fabric" of space I refer to would be an active substance that would be mixed with energy and matter to fill a void, perhaps an analogy of a perfectly clean cloth and a dirty cloth. The dirty cloth representing space with mass and energy, and the clean cloth being space with zero energy and zero mass. But that analogy fails because the cloth itself is competing with the other materials for the space it occupies. Under this analogy, each point consists of either the cloth or the substance on the cloth. But no, what I'm saying is that space is the conduit of mass and energy. The analogy is more like a copper wire, through which electrical energy of a huge spectrum of strength and frequency may pass, or nothing at all. The copper is what allows the energy to exist and flow, and it in no way competes with the electrical current, and it still exists even though there may be no current flowing at all. In the same way, I see the fabric of space being the conduit for both matter and energy to exist and flow, and it exists even in a section of space that we might consider complete void, even if it had no radiation or mass within it. This fabric is "stretched", though in a 3D manner, by the effect of mass, and we call that effect gravity. Where there is no "fabric" no matter or energy can exist, just as where there is no copper wire, no electricity can flow. In this context, my thought experiment of the two weights and a spring can have the spring stretched to a great degree or not stretched at all in an otherwise empty universe depending on the rate of spin, because the amount of spin is relative to the fabric of the space in which it exists. There does not need to be a full universe full of matter around it for the rate of spin to be compared. As you perceive things, it seems to me that if there was no fabric of space, that it would be impossible for these two weights to be spinning around each other in an otherwise empty universe, because there would be nothing to compare the rate of spin to. Nothing at all.
If it were, the passing through space would not take any time.
I would agree. Distance itself would not exist.
Gravity doesn't exist. What a dumb statement.
Time doesn't exist either, as a thing. It's a way we describe sequence, by comparing it to some other physical phenomenon (the turning of planets, the unwinding of springs, the vibration of atoms, etc. There's no reason to think that travel across emptiness should be instantaneous. Void is empty, it it has dimension, and those dimensions are real distances whether they are full or empty, A thing moving across that distance will still take time to do it (meaning that the spring will unwind, or the atoms will vibrate, or the planet will turn, a certain amount during that transit.)
Why wouldn't it? If you go down to the most granular level in a vacuum, there are the walls of the vacuum, and then there is a space devoid of matter. The distance between the walls of the vacuum is real. Now, it is true that the vacuum is still filled with energy particles. If one goes very deep into the dark earth, in a room shielded by lead, there are many fewer particles of energy in that vacuum, and there is space between the energy particles. That space is not filled BY anything. It's void space. It takes particles time to transit across it at the speed of light. Light is not instantaneous. It is particles that have to move through space like anything else. The space itself is nothing at all, neither material or energy - but it still has dimension, it has at the very least the distance between particles. In fact, space IS the distance between things. It's not a tangible thing, but it is something that must be crossed for the particles to touch.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Time doesn't exist either, as a thing. According to Kant neither space nor time is empirical. Time is the a priori form of our awareness of our own inner mental states. Space is the a priori form of external perception in which the representations of outside world appear in our minds. In other words, time and space are forms and conditions of our perception, and come first. Kantian insights, opened way for the relativity theory of Poincare/Einstein and for quantum mechanics.
I can accept those concepts. Time isn't a thing in itself. It's a relationship between things. Likewise distance. So is temperature, for that matter. Without things to have a relationship, there is neither time nor distance nor temperature. Void is a different case, however. For the absence of all things that can have relationship leaves void, and void - the absence of things - is itself a thing, a thing that can be filled with things. Void and space are synonyms, or can be. We can, of course, refer to "Outer Space", which is not a void at all, but which teems with energy. However, between the particles of energy and stray particles of matter, there is void space. Because we call the ensemble "space", I guess we can't call the void "space" without confusion. "Vacuum" would be accurate, but treacherous, because there is vacuum, then, in the densest objects. "Vacuum", too, has a real meaning in people's minds. "Void" is probably the best word to describe the absence of anything, for it has no strong association with something else, the way that "space" and "vacuum" do.
Yes it is. Why, because it is composed of the fabric of space. It is a vacuum only in the sense that it is devoid of matter and energy. But it is space "fabric". As I hypothesize it, distance cannot be measured where no fabric of space exists. It may be that the big bang not only created all the mass and energy in the universe, but also created the fabric of space itself, in which case the edge of the expanding universe is actually where the fabric of space is expanding as well. It seems you still are not grasping the concept I have attempted to convey, that space is a medium that upon which energy and mass can exist, that a vacuum in the sense you mean is still made of the fabric of space. even where there is no energy or matter.
I grasp it. I just don't believe it. You postulate a material universe composed of two structured materials: matter/energy (I assume that you accept the Einsteinian proposition that these are the same thing in different states), and space which is a fabric. I postulate a material universe composed of one things: matter/energy. The absence of matter/energy is nothing. Space is nothing. You think that space has a fabric which acts as a medium through which things move. I think that space is not a medium, simply a void between objects, across which things move. I think that the Michelson/Morley experiments of 1887 empirically demonstrate that there is no medium through which things move, no fabric.
Would your conclusion be that if there is no fabric, then there is no bending of space caused by matter? If you do think there is no fabric warpage of space, how would you account for how light changes course near the presence of mass?
Yes, there is no fabric. Wherever there is great mass, there is also a great amount of matter and particles of energy being emitted - from stars, from quasars, from galaxies. The closer one gets, the greater the matter and energy particle density in any given region of space. That lenses light the same way that a prism does. It isn't bent space doing that, it's that space near stuff is a lot less void and a lot more particles than space far from stuff, and light bends in that prism like any other. Gravity lensing by warped space-time is a superfluous entity, in my view. The SOURCE of the light bending is not gravity - gravity does not exist other than at the surface of things. It is the high density of matter and energy particles in space in the regions of matter that causes that space to be of a different particle density than the space far away. The same refraction of light occurs in that soup as occurs in water or a prism - the light bends towards the normal - refracting. That's what I see when I look at that. I see a normal thing. Another thing to remember is that light doesn't travel in an exactly straight line. Because of the interfence patterns within the light beam itself, it appears to bend itself, slightly. This can be manipulated to cause light to really bend quite a bit, just by adjusting the phase. Intelligently done, light can self-bend 60 degrees or more. As a result of natural coincidence the effect is more muted, but nevertheless existent. And with the expanses of space and the little things that impinge on light in its travels, some bending will inevitably be perceived. And is. That's what I think is going on.
It sure seems a contradiction to me to suggest that A) empty space is devoid of any warpable space/time fabric; and B) Gravity does not exist except on the surface of planets and such; and C)the presence of mass can remotely impact the travel of light that passes though a vacuum near the planet. Prism's and water are directly impacting the travel of light as the light is travelling through those substances but that's a different concept. It seems you are suggesting the bending of light around galactic masses is due to a physical prism effect of the light passing through radiation emanating from nearby mass. But if that were true, we should be observing varying degrees of light bending depending on the amount of radiation emitted by the mass. So the more energy emitted by a mass, the more light lensing would exist. But if that were true, I'd expect variations of that type to have been observed/discovered by now. While alternate explanations for the universe can be entertained, the widely accepted theory of relativity should only be dismissed for cause, and I don't see the merit of going with an alternate theory unless and until relativity can be shown to have errors, given it does such a great job of explaining what we see. So what do you see as the primary flaw in relativity?
You speak using the sort of tones that traditional religion uses "...can be entertained...should only be dismissed for cause..." As you said "I don't see the merit...unless...", and I am tempted to leave it at that. However, I do want to note that you did not repeat what I said. Your "C" is incorrect. I have avoided speaking of vacuum, and have spoken instead in terms of "void" or simply "space". I have done so specifically because void is not the same as "vacuum". Vacuum is commonly understood to mean the absence of matter. I used "void" to distinguish from that, by extending it to include the absence of particles - the complete absence of particles of matter OR of energy - that is "void". Space is not really a vacuum. And the closer one gets to any sort of object - planet, star, galaxy - the more particles of matter there are. Very attenuated, to be sure, but there nonetheless. That is vacuum, but it's certainly not void. The entire space around all stars or galaxies is a plasma chock full of particles, of energy. And this energy radiates across space such that there is no deep void at all. Energy affects energy in complicated ways. The strong gravity lenses we are using out there to see distant galaxies are not planets, they are other galaxies, massive clusters, etc. - wherever you find such massive things, there is a tremendous amount of particle emission from it. But really, what difference does any of this make? My problem with Einsteinian physics is the proliferation of unnecessary and unobservable entities. A much more interesting thing to me is the observable, observed but inexplicable matter of spirit. Bringing that aspect of nature within the realm of science is a much more daunting but ultimately rewarding task. But the time we have for this is short, and as you've said, you don't see the merit in going with any of this, so let's call it a day.
Some fresh coverage on the work of Verlinde over at Ars today. I thought of this thread when I saw and thought I'd post a link. ArsTechnica: Diving deep into the world of emergent gravity If you skip to the end, after covering Verlinde's work decently enough they seem to allege that Verlinde is doing little more than restating Einstein's relativity (as I alleged earlier). However, they leave open the notion that this restating of relativity opens a few promising theoretical doors that Einstein slammed shut. Anyway if Verlinde interests you, you might want to at least skim it.
Yeah, I got your Verlinde right here: He doesn't have a clue. So he starts throwing around terms like "dark matter", "dark energy" and "emergent gravity" to explain what he doesn't know. He might just as well say, "And then a miracle occurs".
Great toon. As for Verlinde, who knows? Perhaps Einstein overstated something or made some unwarranted assumptions. I'd like to think we could make substantial progress. OTOH, no one ever seems to prove that Einstein missed anything. Any yet, he had to have or he would have cracked the toughest problems he tried and failed to solve. To me, it always raises the question of whether such limited beings as ourselves with such limited instrumentality can ever probe the deepest secrets of the universe. Perhaps it is simply beyond crass beings like ourselves. But guys like Einstein and Feynman would never agree with that. Feynman thought that any piece of work, however small, that advances our understanding of nature was worthwhile and honorable work. And he knew his science history and how often a bunch of small discoveries and theoretical constructs finally leads to a big breakthrough by an Einstein. Somehow I don't get the feeling that Verlinde's radical simplifications are a complete answer. But perhaps they are a step toward understanding and further work.
Perhaps. But at least he had a space-time formula that actually works. Our GPS network depends on it. He didn't write an article saying that E=mc² plus or minus dark matter, dark energy and emergent gravity. It's like that article recently where someone postulated that a "cold spot" in our universe meant that it was a portal to another universe. Really?
True. But he may have made some unwarranted assumptions about gravity. His answers, well in line with Newtonian physics, may have missed something crucial despite being so correct and provable on so many other key points. And that is Verlinde's great hope.
Well, they made him into superhuman infallible being. He was not.
He had a knack to appropriate others people cautious guesses to proclaim them as certain and unquestionable facts.
Well, the popular media has contributed a lot to that. And Hollyweird did use his frizzy white hair and accent as the archetype of their Mad Scientist. Einstein didn't discourage it, he liked the attention. I think major historical figures like Einstein have such a reputation in the culture that their offhand remarks are treated as holy writ, whether they intended it or not.
Isn't this like it's not news unless CNN and Hufpo report it?
#37. To: Tooconservative (#34)
Gravity does drop off sharply but still exists even at great distances.
#38. To: A Pole (#37)
We don't know if so called "gravity" does exist. What we know is that concept of gravity helps up to organize and visualize some data or stuff. We know nothing.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#38)
We know we can solve a great many practical problems in astronomy and space flight using this awful "gravity" idea.
I'd like to see you name some top-rank physicists in the last 300 years who don't believe in this #FakeGravity thing.
#40. To: A Pole, redleghunter (#39)
"University of Amsterdam string theorist Erik Verlinde provided a totally new perspective for understanding the effect that has been called gravity. He is convinced that it is not an independent force at all."
#41. To: A Pole (#39)
"University of Amsterdam string theorist Erik Verlinde provided a totally new perspective for understanding the effect that has been called gravity. He is convinced that it is not an independent force at all."
#42. To: Tooconservative (#40)
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
I don't believe in gravity as an independent force.
#44. To: A Pole (#43)
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
#46. To: A Pole (#45)
#47. To: Tooconservative (#46)
Science historians do not believe an apple ever fell on Newton's head.
#48. To: Tooconservative (#46)
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
I do not think, as Newton appears to have, that gravity must be carried by "gravitons"
#50. To: Pinguinite (#49)
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
It's obvious to you that space is a "fabric", that isn't composed of anything.
But this is all about a subject that isn't important in any practical sense, so I think I'll let it go for now.
#52. To: Pinguinite (#51)
I'm late to the party I guess, but fair enough.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
Does that have a "fabric"? When speaking of pure space as black void, then no, it can't, because there's nothing there to make a fabric. But if one speaks of the attenuated energy plasma that fills space, then sure, THAT has a structure to it, however chaotic.
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
It's obvious to me that there is no fabric of space. That space is literal non-existence.
#55. To: A Pole (#54)
If it were, the passing through space would not take any time.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
#57. To: A Pole (#54)
If it were, the passing through space would not take any time.
#58. To: Pinguinite (#55)
Distance itself would not exist.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Gravity doesn't exist. What a dumb statement.
#60. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#57)
If it were, the passing through space would not take any time.
#61. To: A Pole (#60)
According to Kant neither space nor time is empirical. ... In other words, time and space are forms and conditions of our perception, and come first.
#62. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
Distance itself would not exist.
Why wouldn't it?
If you go down to the most granular level in a vacuum, there are the walls of the vacuum, and then there is a space devoid of matter. The distance between the walls of the vacuum is real.
If one goes very deep into the dark earth, in a room shielded by lead, there are many fewer particles of energy in that vacuum, and there is space between the energy particles. That space is not filled BY anything. It's void space.
#63. To: Pinguinite (#62)
It seems you still are not grasping the concept I have attempted to convey, that space is a medium that upon which energy and mass can exist, that a vacuum in the sense you mean is still made of the fabric of space. even where there is no energy or matter.
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#63)
I think that the Michelson/Morley experiments of 1887 empirically demonstrate that there is no medium through which things move, no fabric.
#65. To: Pinguinite (#64)
(Edited)
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#65)
(Edited)
#67. To: Pinguinite (#66)
#68. To: A Pole, misterwhite (#39)
#69. To: Tooconservative (#68)
#70. To: misterwhite, A Pole (#69)
#71. To: Tooconservative (#70)
"Perhaps Einstein overstated something ..."
#72. To: misterwhite (#71)
(Edited)
He didn't write an article saying that E=mc² plus or minus dark matter, dark energy and emergent gravity.
#73. To: Tooconservative (#70)
OTOH, no one ever seems to prove that Einstein missed anything.
#74. To: Tooconservative (#72)
But he may have made some unwarranted assumptions about gravity.
#75. To: A Pole (#73)
Well, they made him into superhuman infallible being. He was not.
He had a knack to appropriate others people cautious guesses to proclaim them as certain and unquestionable facts.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]