I'm going to be honest with you chessmaster, I only have a 4 year physics degree, which is basically nothing. The only reason I mentioned it was to simply show that I understand the most basic concepts of physics.
I'm also going to tell you that I cannot say whether your model is correct or not because I do not have a deep knowledge of particle physics.
I will say however, that I believe much of our current physics to be seriously flawed at a fundamental level, and therefore, I don't believe any correct model can truly be built directly on top of it.
Lets look at the problems: - 95% of the universe is currently completely unknown with the introduction of dark energy, and dark matter - QM and GR are incompatible - QM requires almost an infinite energy density in space while GR requires a lower but still finite energy density of space
Let me ask you a simple question CM. Lets say have a standing wave photon in a box. Lets say you overlay another standing wave photon in the box, but 180 degrees out of phase (so they cancel). Where does the energy go?
the way the standard model and gauge theory (Quantum electro-dynamics)looks at photons today they could quantum tunnel if they had to right out of the box........ .http://www.altair.org/Qtunnel.html ,,,,,,,, here is a low tech tunnel experiment
.but the myth says............................
lmao the most perpetuated "modern urban physics myth ".. that lasers in zero phase violate conservation laws ..well let me enlighten you on the problems with classical particle wave duality and its problems as it relates to quantum electrodynamics , .. lasers can be compared to RF transmission , since you cannot zero phase two lasers we must look at two RF transmission to see what would happen ...... this issue is nothing more than smoke and mirrors .. and imaginary problem that does not exist anywhere but inside feynmans head,, i assure you lasers in zero or 180 degree phase do not violate conservation of energy ,
ok i will explain this is classical wave form since that what you probably know.. i prefer modern gauge theory .... but lets use wave theory since you said standing wave........... well since your experiment is not in a vacuum and does not have a 1/4 silver mirror i would say the laser just reabsorbed the values after destructive interference, constructive interference , and whatever does not find the lowest impedance elsewhere will go down the transmission line , the average energy density is twice that of either wave, just as it's supposed to be. and as Maxwell himself coined the terms, "virtual short" and "virtual open", as a shorthand description of what rearward-traveling reflected energy encounters at a match point in a transmission line resulting in 100% re-reflection ", basically in the case of two emitters and mirrors one emitter will act like a reflector or absorber and the system will compensate,... He also explained the function of destructive wave interference and constructive wave interference in achieving a match point on a transmission line .. we can basically view the optics as RF transmissions . they follow the same conservation laws as applied to waves.. .. when two waves of laser light that are equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-degrees ... out of phase with each other cross paths, they are not actually annihilated becuase photons do not annihilate they have no antiparticle except in Feynman imagination or in nuclear explosions, all of the photon energy present in these waves must somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to the law of energy conservation , in the quantum world photons do not annihilate often so they happily and harmlessly bounce around down the transmission ....we could look at any heat from friction to be less than that of empty space.. ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so the effect should be considered as a " redistribution of e-field light waves and photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction of light , this is where the myth perpetuates , we are only destroying light in " visible range " the E field not the B field ...... of course what the experimental system not take care of , our own earth background scalar waves will cancel the rest.. In an RF transmission line, since there are only two possible directions, the only "regions that permit constructive interference" at an impedance discontinuity is the opposite direction from the direction of destructive interference.so how do we relate this to lasers ? well........(i got this from my engineering dictionary ) " the original version, the redistribution of energy due to wave cancellation was called a "reflection", a common practice in amateur radio circles. the new description is in favor of a "redistribution" . The word "reflection" is reserved for describing the event when a single wave encounters an impedance discontinuity. This is accordance with the definition of "reflected wave". The word "redistribution" of energy is adopted for describing what happens to the energy when two or more waves interact. In like manner, since interference can occur with or without permanent wave interaction, interference alone is necessary but not sufficient to correspond to the permanent redistribution of energy."
when you start adding mirrors , and make the box a vacuum then turn the phase to a 180 phase as this experiment case it is simple there is no extra energy .. since you are measuring it as a wave you get destructive interference ..and harmonic nulls with constructive interference waves along the transmission line...... as far as zero degree phase is concerned it is not even possible with a laser to create a disappeared standing wave at zero phase since we cannot make a perfect 0 degree phase ... we get a Coherent combination on the transmission line and constructional interference either on line or off axis .. also background interference with earths scalar waves occur in your experiment as you did not specify an imaginary, perfect vacuum ////// in the field of optics, irradiance is the same thing as the power flow vector in an RF transmission line. Irradiance, like a power flow vector, has the dimensions of energy per unit time per unit area. The 1/4 wavelength thin-film deposited on glass to obtain a non-reflective surface performs in a virtually identical way to a 1/4 wavelength series matching section in a transmission line. Single-source RF energy in a transmission line and laser light are both coherent electromagnetic energy waves that obey the laws of superposition, interference, conservation of energy, and conservation of momentum. The power density terms in the irradiance equation have been multiplied by the unit area of the transmission line to obtain the resulting power equation in watts.
and or
but let us assume we can get lasers to phase at zero degrees ....this question at hand however is at least interesting in theory. Traveling waves do not remain in a constructive or destructive pattern and result in the null and dual intensity energy densities, wherein on the average the energy is conserved.but it gets dissipated over short terms and distances into the background waves , but the amplifier and capacitors can also adsorb these low frequency waves for instance, consider an Op Amp with two perfectly matched signals one + and one -. The input energy of the + vs the output is calculable, likewise for the - input. However if both inputs are driven simultaneously there is no output. Energy hasn't disappeared. The Op Amp still draws power but the efficiency of transfer to i.e. acoustical in case of a speaker, has dropped to zero.so even in this hypothetical case if it were possible and background scalar waves did not cancel energy , then the electrical system of the device would absorb the energy the emmiter would act as a reflector(most likely ....i have see a version of this pushing it back as close to zero degrees as i could with a mirror second phased set of lasers joining inn phase...contrary to myth, there are in theory, very subtle two phase settings
If in theory, however, one could generate signals where there is an energy output and they could be perfectly matched and aligned 180 degrees out of phase with the same vector, energy conservation appears to be violated.but it only appears this way .......... . ..but as long as you are looking at it as a wave ...l then look at it like RF signals ..... .. to me this physics myth has been blown out of proportion ..and for some reason it has hung around even though educated people know the history of particle wave duality and how the myth started.... the war of fermions ,,, or boson ....full integer ... or half integer spin......... .. either you are looking at it like a wave or you are not .....these imagined problems formed by classical particle wave duality looking at photons as fermions are imaginary and not real .. so my answer is ??the imaginary extra energy does not go anywhere becuase it was never there in the first place .. .... .... lt would be more interesting of a question to ask from a quantum standpoint in my opinion ,, when we start viewing it as a particle gauge boson that exist probabilistically , interference becomes truly strange/////
.. this sounds like a trick question a teacher would ask in physics 102 after you learned the first year and forget to tell you about earths scalar waves.that cancel.......or the teacher forgets to tell you background radiation in space . so there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum ... or that you cannot build perfect 0 phase lasers as well , or this issue is based of several particle wave duality myths carried over from classical mechanics that are now obsolete ....
so what have we learned ? this is no mystery of destructive interference , as an engineer would say, that is how they view it ......they compensate for impedance of the devices when designing for RF transmission waves. , energy will find other pathways in the amps or , or the emitters themselves will act like a mirrors or absorbers , basically the extra energy that cannot fit in the constant state will resume down the transmission , destruct ,reflect. or absorb.. 1.....if two electromagnetic-waves interfere destructively, only the E-field gets to be zero at that point. The B-field still oscillates at the fine structure constant ... the very equations are symmetrical. take an emitter and fire it at another emitter located half a wavelength away, the second emitter will not emit extra energy , ... It will just absorb the energy of the other emitter and use it.that is what i found anyway .. then you will see an addition of out of phase waves equaling to zero beyond the second emitter, but the paradox of energy loss is resolved by realizing that the second emitter is in fact an absorber . ....... it seems the other laser always reflected or absorbed when i got a constant state and they equalized , basically the system absorbed it ,, or background scalar waves from our earth will cancel it if that is the least resistance ,
once you add duality however , or quantum aspects it gets a little more complected ,, gauge theory , quantum electro dynamics , and all that shit Gaussian beams.etc...
It is like asking: when i set a glass in a stream and keep pouring water into a glass ,, when the glass gets full, where does the water go?
The point is: you cannot keep pouring water into a full glass energy flows into the space in which the two waves are canceling each other and flow down the transmission line ,,,.........
.. but i am not an expert on Maxwells classical wave theory which is a little outdated, Feynman or debroglie , or explaining particle wave duality in classical terms the way i view light in string theory this gets explained much easier
any way about all i remember about wave theory .. nowadays we view it as a gauge boson.....and these old myths have been solved .. just some of the textbooks are outdated and this myth has stayed alive somehow .. the way the standard model and gauge theory (Quantum electro-dynamics)looks at photons today they could quantum tunnel if they had to right out of the box
There were so many responds and criticism to this thread once. After the Sc2 release and such there are so many new people between us and i kinda feel the need to open this discussion with bumping the thread again. QualiaSoup and ThereminTrees(Qualia's brother) added new videos about morality, god, gimmicks, games etc. so i would like to add them to the op too but i just can't edit them. Anyways again, you will find a lot more in the videos.
Is critical thinking needed, should it be taught in school? Does being skeptic a good aproach to moral related discussions? Can morality be objective? Anything related with videos.
Note: I talked a mod about posting these videos to the op because i can't change it so it would be really good if any mod could do it. Thank you.
Good bump. I think our community would be much better if people put more thought into what they want to say. X-X
When I was in University, Critical Thinking/Reasoning was mandatory all across the board. It didn't matter which faculty you were in. You had to take it.
The only exposure I have to transactional analysis was that book Games People Play, and while it had some really good explanations for alcoholism and group therapy ego-stroking, the stuff relating to male/female interaction was so tainted with Freudian babble about penis envy and oedipal urges that I sort of shrugged the whole subject off.
I'll take a look at these videos when I get home; hopefully there's been some advancement in the field since then and I don't have to hear about wanting to fuck my mom.
The only exposure I have to transactional analysis was that book Games People Play, and while it had some really good explanations for alcoholism and group therapy ego-stroking, the stuff relating to male/female interaction was so tainted with Freudian babble about penis envy and oedipal urges that I sort of shrugged the whole subject off.
I'll take a look at these videos when I get home; hopefully there's been some advancement in the field since then and I don't have to hear about wanting to fuck my mom.
The videos are noob friendly so don't expect academic stuff. The purpose is to get more people understand critical thinking related stuff and teach them the ways or explain what are the motives of doing what we do in simplest ways.
Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Yeah but looks like not many people eager to talk about it like first time
On May 16 2010 00:05 chessmaster wrote:as i have never taken physics ,, and taught myself advanced calculus from a basic level in my spare time... i was wondering if this physics is working or incorrect..i currently have no help
You would seriously benefit from graduate level physics courses. Go to your local university and ask the professors if you can sit in on some courses because you are just very interested. It's quite hard to read what you are proposing because you bounce between topics, and frequently mix analogy and QM notation. Also, when you say advanced calculus, that includes tensor calculus, right? Otherwise you can't deal with General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory as they are formulated.
I'm taking an AS/A level in Philosophy (16-18 y/o for those in America) and I honestly think the world would be just such a better place if everyone took either that or a critical thinking course. (I was going to do crit thinking as well but decided on Art instead ) Philosophy and Crit thinking are of course a little different but the idea stands
Jobs such as Law, Medicine, Military command etc should definitely require a course in Philosophy and/or Crit thinking IMO
On July 30 2011 06:11 BlindSC2 wrote: I'm taking an AS/A level in Philosophy (16-18 y/o for those in America) and I honestly think the world would be just such a better place if everyone took either that or a critical thinking course. (I was going to do crit thinking as well but decided on Art instead ) Philosophy and Crit thinking are of course a little different but the idea stands
Jobs such as Law, Medicine, Military command etc should definitely require a course in Philosophy and/or Crit thinking IMO
At least in the US, the LSAT [standardized test for law students] has its majority based upon argument-building/reasoning processes.
On July 30 2011 06:40 sorrowptoss wrote: It's funny how you need an open-mind to understand what an open-mind is. I showed this to one of my friends and he said it was stupid. LOL
Perfect example of his personal bias affecting the way he thinks.
EPT
) Philosophy and Crit thinking are of course a little different but the idea stands 
