Re: The origin of gravity

On 31 ago, 10:15, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Experimental realization of Wheeler’s delayed-choice
GedankenExperiment"http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0610/0610241v1.pdf

"Any description in which light is treated as a classical wave, like
the semi-classical theory with quantized photodetectors (24), predicts
that these numbers of counts should obey the inequality a ≥ 1..
Violation of this inequality thus gives a quantitative criterion which
characterizes nonclassical behaviour. For a single-photon wavepacket,
Quantum Optics predicts perfect anticorrelation i.e. a  = 0 in
agreement with the intuitive image that a single particle cannot be
detected simultaneously in the two paths of the interferometer"

What the experiment is saying is a classical wave will be detected
along both paths and QM agrees with the intuitive image that a single
particle cannot be detected simultaneously in the two paths.

The experiment has used a false assumption about what a photon
actually is (i.e. a classical wave) in order to prove the experiment
does not behave if treated not as QM predicts.

So, let's not treat it like a classical wave, because a photon isn't a
classical wave. Let's treat it like it actually exists in nature. Like
a photon, because that is what it is.

The photon wave IS traveling along both paths, but the photon particle
is traveling along a single path. If you ran this experiment with a
C-60 molecule, then the wave the C-60 molecule is creating in the
aether would travel along both paths and the C-60 molecule would
travel along a single path.

If you use what is actually occurring in nature, then using a
'classical wave' in order to undermine non-QM theories, when no
one says a photon is simply a classical wave, is pure bull ***.

QM does not make the correct determinations. QM says a 'delayed
choice' is occurring in experiment.

What you call "determinations" should be called "quantitative
predictions of measured results" and this is exactly what QM gets
correct, and this is what science asks for.

What you called a "determination" is something different and has
nothing to do with science.

That is not what is occurring in the experiment. The photon wave is
traveling both paths and the photon particle is traveling a single
path.

The quantitative predictions of measured results is finding a false
result based upon a false prediction. There is no 'delayed choice'.

You do believe in wave-particle duality correct?

Then what is happening in classical mechanics is the wave is traveling
both paths and the particle is traveling a single path.

That's what waves do.

When a wave interacts with BSinput the wave goes through and is
reflected by BSinput. To think a wave would do otherwise is to believe
in nonsense.

Then what is happening in classical mechanics is the particle is
traveling a single path because that is what particles do. A particle
is reflected or travels through BSinput. To think a particle would do
otherwise is to believe in nonsense.

With the wave traveling both paths and the particle traveling a single
path, the photon, which is detected by detecting the photon particle,
will always be detected along a single path. No one believes otherwise
and to make any predictions about what would happen in non-QM theories
based upon a photon being a 'classical wave' that can be detected
traveling along both paths is pure bull***.

So, we have a wave traveling both paths and a particle traveling a
single path, exactly like a wave and a particle would be expected to
do in nature.

If BSoutput is introduced there is interference. If BSoutput is
removed no interference.

Nothing to do with anything being a 'delayed choice'. To believe in a
'delayed choice' is to require something other than the above
explanations of how a wave and a particle behave in the experiment and
in nature and requires one to believe in nonsense.

You insist in finding the work of the researchers on the delayed
choice paper to be wrong!! and adjusting their finding to your own
misconceptions. Don't you think it is only fair to inform those
researchers (and also the journal Science) of your objections?.

Their addresses are: Vincent Jacques, Frederic Grosshans, Francois
Treussart, are at the Laboratoire de Photonique Quantique et
Moléculaire, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan, UMR CNRS 8537, 94235
Cachan, France.
Professor Wu, is at Key Laboratory of Optical and Magnetic Resonance
Spectroscopy, East China Normal University, 200062 Shanghai, China.
Philippe Grangier, alain Aspect and jean-Francois Roch ar at the
Laboratoire Charles Fabry de l’Institut d’Optique, Campus
Polytechnique, UMR CNRS 8501, 91127 Palaiseau, France.

By e-mail you can reach Dr. Roch at roch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

They would very interested in knowing of your theories on this regard.

Miguel Rios
.

Quantcast