Skip to comments.Natural selection acts on the quantum world
Posted on 12/23/2004 8:31:39 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
What is waving? Particles are pieces of what?
I followed the link, and my beeber was STUNED!
"All your conspiracy are belong to us."
Where do they come UP with this stuff??
On second thought, maybe I don't really want to know...
Cheers and Merry Christmas!
One need not use the game sequence number as Parrondo's version does.
There some evidence that muscle contractions use a mechanism simlilar to Astumians.
It's also interesting that there are two commentaries (one Polish and one in something like "Physics Today") that review these games but get the math wrong.
Detroit is snowed in today. (Amazing how Runyon ties into so much scientific discussion.)
What does this have to do with YEC?
Careful, they take this stuff seriously. You might hurt the purposeless feelings of some soulless, will-less evolutionist in his imaginary world who is particularly lonely this time of year.
Waving? Visualize sawdust floating on a lake with waves moving across the surface, that's a rough analogy. In a sense the sawdust particles and waves are ONE. Now with ElectroMagnetic waves, from radio(long)to gamma(short)wavelengths it's like the(localized)particles are rotating in a circle as they move in a linear direction. Now change the floating sawdust to corks tied together on a string vertically at one foot spacings going down in the water(with some anchor weight at the bottom of the string). As you see, the top cork goes through the largest circular motion as the crest/trough passes by. The next one down(1 ft lower)a slightly smaller radius, the third cork(2 ft down)still a smaller radius, and so on down to where there is virtually no detectable circular motion at all. Now, this is just the opposite to EM wavelengths : shorter=higher energy. Getting tossed around in a boat on the LONG wavelengths of surface water waves in a storm is definitely more energy than being way under the waves in a submarine, yes? This then is the difference between EM waves, which govern bosons(photons of light)and DeBroglie's matter waves which govern fermions(electrons/protons/neutrons/etc):shorter waveLENGTH=higher bose energy and lower fermi energy. Ok then, get laid back and think about WAVES, WAVES, WAVES over the christmas to New Years holidays, then we can discuss PARTICLES.
Frankly, none of this sounds Darwinian at all. I suppose they just thought "quantum Darwinism" sounded catchy.
If you assemble enough people, those in the back won't be able to see the tree ...
Sawdust and water? I thought light would be made out of less dense materials.
I'm using sawdust and water as analogies of photons moving as waves. It is still an open question as to the SIZE of photons. Since photons of light travel all the way across the universe without HITTING each other they must be true points, unlike electrons, protons, neutrons, molecular gases. If they DID have appreciable size/volumes you wouldn't be able to see distant objects like the moon or faraway quasars/galaxies, things would just "fuzz out". As to matter(fermions-electrons, protons, neutrons), the waves are given by DeBroglie's formula : h/mv or the quantum area divided by the momentum of the object(collection of fermions), and the speed of the wave crest is given as U=c^2/v. This means matter waves are far too tiny in wavelength to see with your eyes(that see in the 4000 to 7700 angstrom range)but requires that they travel FASTER than light(Einstein's c limit). This threw the relativists into a tizzy : nothing can travel faster than 3 x 10^8km/sec. So they came up with this hokey explanation : PHASE matter waves travel at up to 9 x 10^16km/sec, coming from +infinity to -infinity, but cancel everywhere(destructive wave interference)except at the GROUP that wave-defines your blinking eyelid at less than c, to satisfy wave-particle complementarity. Pure NONSENSE! What they didn't consider is to ask : is c^2 a LINE or an AREA? As line in momentum you get 9 x 10^16km/sec of fermions GLOBALLY and 0 km/sec(v=0)LOCALLY; like completely at rest on a speeding jet. So you go from a line statement : mv(momentum)to mv^2/2(area statement)for mass. Anyway, merry CHRISTMAS, we'll continue on the other side of santa's visit..
This loss of information happened at The Fall. When G-D kicked Adam & Eve out of the garden, He removed H~s protection of all the majickal, non-localized quantum states, eventually leaving only cold, cruel, Darwinian objectivity to survive.
In short: Objectivity is all Satan's fault.
But now, if we let G*D into our hearts, He'll extend H-s protection back to all those fragile quantum states while you pray to H^m. This is why prayer produces miracles.
You've got it exactly backwards! Without the suppression of all of those non-local states, we wouldn't have an objective world at all. All of the bewildering multiplicity of quantum possibilities would be equally real, making stable, steady reality an impossibility.
So be careful in blaming Satan for objectivity...you might be assigning him credit rather than blame!
Merry Christmas ...
Because they know the odds are against them.
One is even tempted to say "Nicely, nicely"!
Since a photon travels at the speed of light it never ages. It's identical today to the point when it was originally emitted, even if it originated back near the time of the Big Bang. All it's energy on it's journey through spacetime is expended on its motion through the familiar 3 dimensions, so it never advances through the 4th dimension: time.
Am I right so far?
If so, then how does an individual photon arrive at a detector on earth today with a different frequency than when it was originally emitted? The explanations I have read attribute this to the expansion of the universe and the relative motion of the photon and observer.
But I also thought that the relative motion between a photon and an observer were always the constant c, so how does the expansion of the universe change this? Or do we have to invoke general relativity, or am I just very confused?
Physicist, I've always enjoyed your informative postings, your participation in the 1998 March for Justice, and your efforts in defending Don Adams.
Chlorophyll is a molecule containing many atoms which all have different "excitation states" available to emit (reflect) light. Thus, all light is absorbed and many wavelenghts (mainly in the green spectrum) are emitted.
One molecule of chlorophyll is like every other and has the same transition state.
Actually, there oare two types of chlorophyll molecules but that is beside the point. There are many transistion states with those with energies corresponding to the greens emitting while the other frequencies of light are not (at least for the most part) emitted but the absorbed energy (exitation) is converted into molecular re-actions.
The only change would be slight variations in its chemical environent that can casue the energy for the transition to shift slightly higher or lower, hence casuing a broadening of the wavelength window responsible for the observed color.
Again, it is a molecule and has many transition states resulting in many frequencies being emitted (reflected). You are partially correct in that bringing atoms and/or molecules in close proximity results in additional transition states (frequencies).
I think the author's point is that you can ask the people with front row seats they saw.
"I donno about this one..."
I had doubts because it reads, at first, like New Age mystic commentary.
But, Phys Rev Letters and Nature are serious.
Big Time editing and peer review here. So it should be read carefully.
The point to look for is:
What new experiment or observation is the basis for the headline?
I can't see it. But this whole topic seems related to an article which sparked a lively thread a few months ago:
Deriving Dimensions: Emergence of a 4D World From Causal Quantum Gravity.
QM gives me a brain ache, so I can't focus on it just now. Maybe tomorrow.
Chlorophyll is a poor example because of its complexity and the multiple transitions that occur in the visible. My point was that each of these transitions involves changes between specific quantum states and that a continuum of states does not exist for a specific transition in a molecule. Chlorophyll, as you mentioned, has multiple transitions, but these each have a different, specific origin. Only a few of the atoms in chlorophyll are directly involved in transitions in the visible, and some arise from the conjugated system around the central iron atom. All things being constant, the same molecule will have the same transition energy involved with aborption for a specific transition.
Also, using color is also poor example because of the complexities involved in the biological perception of color. I say this because in vision, the observer is as critical as the source and the object observed. Light observation also involves quantum transitions in the photosensitive chemicals in the photoreceptors of the retina. The same apparent color can be produced by the proper balance of stimulation of the three tristimulus functions of the eye, even though completely different wavelengths of light may be involved. That's an interesting phenomenon in cheap fluorescent lights. They are really a mix of a red and a green emission bands that are balanced in such a way that they look bright white to thenhuman eye.
Yes, this kind, of thing
pops up in many contexts . . .
In fact, in his book
optics in art history,
David Hockney shows
going back hundreds of years
where concepts are clear,
but the "practical"
examples cited are flawed.
Theory is, dumb folk
get tripped up by the
nuts and bolts, whereas smart folk
everything they need
from a clear presentation
of concepts alone.
So, knowledge gets out
to people who can use it
but not to poseurs. . .
(When I think about
how much money I've wasted
trying to get my
become entrained by or to
with lottery draws,
I have to admit knowledge
colors me poseur . . .)
Thanks for the ping!