Gravity never zero
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
- Status
No, because the Higgs plays a very particular role in electroweak theory, one which the photon cannot play. Something causes a Higgs mechanism but we don't know if it's a Higgs boson or some kind of combination of QCD particles. The Higgs boson is the more elegant and straight forward possibility but Nature doesn't always play by that rule.
I am not denying HIGGS mechanism or particle HIGGS-BOSON .
Let us assume partcle Higgs-Boson exists and is having some non-zero mass . If this particle is annihilated through some interaction , its mass will be converted into some finite number of photon particles .
So , ultimately mass or inertia can be corelated with photon particle only .
Einstein in his papaer predicted that mass or inertia can be transferred from one body to another body through radiation or photon particles .
We know that particle photon is massless , though it has its own wavelength , frequency , momentum and energy .
Particle photon is the most fundamental of all the sub-atomic particles because it can not be divided further .
So at the most fundamental level we can say that , inertia of mass can be corelated with the wavelength or frequency of a photon particle .
We know that particle photon is massless , though it has its own wavelength , frequency , momentum and energy .
Particle photon is the most fundamental of all the sub-atomic particles because it can not be divided further .
So at the most fundamental level we can say that , inertia of mass can be corelated with the wavelength or frequency of a photon particle .
Electro522
Registered Senior Member
I know this is completely off topic, but has made this thread last so long and also get 783 comments on it?
Gravity , quantum-gravity , no-gravity(zero-gravity) , anti-gravity , inertia , mass , energy , Einstein's Equation , particle Photon are all related topics . Some co-relations can be found among them .
Particle photon affects gravity . Particle photon is also affected by gravity .
So particle photon is not off-topic with gravity .
Syne, there seems to be, primarily two issues we have been disagreeing on, an interpretation of the uncertainty principle and whether "relativistic mass" is useful and/or accurate terminology...
I believe that the discussion involving the equivalence principle has been mostly one of philosophy and semantics. Taken together the following two quotes, from two separate posts, if interpreted as consistent with one another, are not in any significant way dissimilar to my understanding.
Sometimes a distraction from a conversation, that requires one to go back and re-read, is of benefit. If I am not once again misunderstanding you, you are not saying that a particle cannot have.., both position and momentum simultaneously, only that they cannot be measured simultaneously.
While there may be some debate, on the issue of wave-particle duality, and whether a particle exists as some hybrid or fluctuates between the two, I don't believe there is any question that a particle can have for example, both a position and momentum, though we cannot measure both — simultaneously — with any certainty. Measuring one changes the other, and thus leads to the uncertainty, or simultaneous certainty.
On the issue of relativistic mass, most of what has been argued is from a perspective, involving the ease of "teaching" relativity and relies heavily on a historical perspective, influenced by a preferred mathematical description. What seems to lie at the heart of the debate is at least in part, a preference of definition, which gets bogged down by the almost inseparable concepts of mass and inertia, and the fact that inertia scales, as a function of gamma, with acceleration. Where gamma is the Lorentz factor, $$\frac{1}{sqrt{1-v^2c^2}}$$. So long as mass is defined, by a particle's.., or object's inertial resistance to any change in its state of motion, the discussion seems to lead logically to the concept of relativistic mass.
What seems to become lost, is that defining both mass and inertia in this way, is all about the geometry of perceived relationships. Nothing is said or settled as to the fundamental origin of either inertia or mass... And the archaic view that inertia is solely an intrinsic and fundamental character of matter and mass, dominates the discussion on both sides of the debate.
My earlier link was to an article focused directly on how the concept affects teaching and what impact the introduction of relativistic mass has on the lay public's understanding. I do not believe that among those actively involved in science on either side of the discussion there is any fundamental misunderstanding. However, there always comes a time in science when concepts become generally accepted, by the lay public and contribute in some way to both the general culture and further potential advancement, of science itself. Science has always required benefactors and today those benefactors are the general public and their taxes. Gone, for the most part, are the days of the backyard researcher, at least within the context we speak of here. And the debate which, remains almost one of semantics and preference within the scientific community, does breed confusion for the lay public.
Obviously, I fall toward the side of an invariant mass and a definition of what was once referred to as relativistic mass, as invariant mass and relativistic momentum. Most of the time I cite Okun, The Concept of Mass. Another good reference can be found in, Einstein on mass and energy, by Eugene Hech, which to some extent may have been an indirect rebuttal to your earlier reference. Still all of these references on both sides of the discussion, are a continuation of past debate and historical interpretations.
As I mentioned, I favor the conceptual perspective, where it is momentum that scales with gamma, while mass remains invariant... But the real issue, I think falls on the relationship between the definition of mass and inertia. What is mass and what is inertia? Historically and mathematically, they are difficult to untangle... And the various methods of description, are just that descriptions, not definitions. Each (mass and inertia) becoming, at least historically, dependent on one another.
To better understand my intent above, consider the work that has been done since the late 1960s, gaining more interest in the last few decades, surrounding the concept of inertia, as a phenomena emergent from the interaction of charged particles and the zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum (ZPF). Though it does not yet seem that a completely satisfactory model has been developed, if one assumes any merit to the underlying concept, inertia can no longer be considered to be solely an intrinsic and fundamental character of mass... And this has a significant impact on the issue of relativistic mass.
Beginning in the late sixties and gaining interest in the past few decades, the idea of inertia has been explored as a phenomena emergent from the interaction of charged particles and the ZPF. (See: Sakharov, Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda, Nickisch, Mollere...) While there does not, at least at present seem to be a completely successful model, there remains a great deal of exploration. Extending even from inertia to a quantum description of gravity.
The problem for the relativistic mass discussion, is that despite the lack of a completely successful model, if one accepts that there is any merit to inertia as an emergent ZPF phenomena, the dynamic components of inertia can no longer be thought of as entirely intrinsic to particle mass. An object's inertia becomes defined, as a function of the motion of a particle through the ZPF, which scales as a function of velocity and gamma. (Though most references address only inertia associated with acceleration.) Inertia is no longer solely an intrinsic property of mass. Instead it is dynamic and the relativistic aspect can easily be associated with the ZPF, rather than mass itself. In essence space is no longer empty and inertia is dynamic instead of an intrinsic property of mass. — Which leads back to an invariant mass and relativistic momentum, associated with the dynamic inertial interaction between mass and the ZPF.
For science today, it is an unimportant issue or distinction. Scientists on both sides of the discussion understand one another. However, change sometimes comes slowly, when conceptual ideology, becomes rooted in public understanding. As example, consider the flat earth. The Greeks understood the earth to be round.., a sphere, a couple hundred years B.C. and yet maps continued to show a flat earth well into at least the 1600s A.D. How much did this slow down exploration and discovery? Not because of a limitation in the understanding of learned philosophers and later scientists, but because the understanding of the general public, hindered the process...
It is not only important how scientists understand things. How the general public understands them is of equal and sometimes more importance. And it does seem that for the general public the concept of relativistic mass, while it simplifies some explanation of special relativity, plants an ideology in the public mind that leads to later conflict.
I believe that the discussion involving the equivalence principle has been mostly one of philosophy and semantics. Taken together the following two quotes, from two separate posts, if interpreted as consistent with one another, are not in any significant way dissimilar to my understanding.
Syne said:
Syne said:
Sometimes a distraction from a conversation, that requires one to go back and re-read, is of benefit. If I am not once again misunderstanding you, you are not saying that a particle cannot have.., both position and momentum simultaneously, only that they cannot be measured simultaneously.
While there may be some debate, on the issue of wave-particle duality, and whether a particle exists as some hybrid or fluctuates between the two, I don't believe there is any question that a particle can have for example, both a position and momentum, though we cannot measure both — simultaneously — with any certainty. Measuring one changes the other, and thus leads to the uncertainty, or simultaneous certainty.
On the issue of relativistic mass, most of what has been argued is from a perspective, involving the ease of "teaching" relativity and relies heavily on a historical perspective, influenced by a preferred mathematical description. What seems to lie at the heart of the debate is at least in part, a preference of definition, which gets bogged down by the almost inseparable concepts of mass and inertia, and the fact that inertia scales, as a function of gamma, with acceleration. Where gamma is the Lorentz factor, $$\frac{1}{sqrt{1-v^2c^2}}$$. So long as mass is defined, by a particle's.., or object's inertial resistance to any change in its state of motion, the discussion seems to lead logically to the concept of relativistic mass.
What seems to become lost, is that defining both mass and inertia in this way, is all about the geometry of perceived relationships. Nothing is said or settled as to the fundamental origin of either inertia or mass... And the archaic view that inertia is solely an intrinsic and fundamental character of matter and mass, dominates the discussion on both sides of the debate.
My earlier link was to an article focused directly on how the concept affects teaching and what impact the introduction of relativistic mass has on the lay public's understanding. I do not believe that among those actively involved in science on either side of the discussion there is any fundamental misunderstanding. However, there always comes a time in science when concepts become generally accepted, by the lay public and contribute in some way to both the general culture and further potential advancement, of science itself. Science has always required benefactors and today those benefactors are the general public and their taxes. Gone, for the most part, are the days of the backyard researcher, at least within the context we speak of here. And the debate which, remains almost one of semantics and preference within the scientific community, does breed confusion for the lay public.
Obviously, I fall toward the side of an invariant mass and a definition of what was once referred to as relativistic mass, as invariant mass and relativistic momentum. Most of the time I cite Okun, The Concept of Mass. Another good reference can be found in, Einstein on mass and energy, by Eugene Hech, which to some extent may have been an indirect rebuttal to your earlier reference. Still all of these references on both sides of the discussion, are a continuation of past debate and historical interpretations.
As I mentioned, I favor the conceptual perspective, where it is momentum that scales with gamma, while mass remains invariant... But the real issue, I think falls on the relationship between the definition of mass and inertia. What is mass and what is inertia? Historically and mathematically, they are difficult to untangle... And the various methods of description, are just that descriptions, not definitions. Each (mass and inertia) becoming, at least historically, dependent on one another.
To better understand my intent above, consider the work that has been done since the late 1960s, gaining more interest in the last few decades, surrounding the concept of inertia, as a phenomena emergent from the interaction of charged particles and the zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum (ZPF). Though it does not yet seem that a completely satisfactory model has been developed, if one assumes any merit to the underlying concept, inertia can no longer be considered to be solely an intrinsic and fundamental character of mass... And this has a significant impact on the issue of relativistic mass.
Beginning in the late sixties and gaining interest in the past few decades, the idea of inertia has been explored as a phenomena emergent from the interaction of charged particles and the ZPF. (See: Sakharov, Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda, Nickisch, Mollere...) While there does not, at least at present seem to be a completely successful model, there remains a great deal of exploration. Extending even from inertia to a quantum description of gravity.
The problem for the relativistic mass discussion, is that despite the lack of a completely successful model, if one accepts that there is any merit to inertia as an emergent ZPF phenomena, the dynamic components of inertia can no longer be thought of as entirely intrinsic to particle mass. An object's inertia becomes defined, as a function of the motion of a particle through the ZPF, which scales as a function of velocity and gamma. (Though most references address only inertia associated with acceleration.) Inertia is no longer solely an intrinsic property of mass. Instead it is dynamic and the relativistic aspect can easily be associated with the ZPF, rather than mass itself. In essence space is no longer empty and inertia is dynamic instead of an intrinsic property of mass. — Which leads back to an invariant mass and relativistic momentum, associated with the dynamic inertial interaction between mass and the ZPF.
For science today, it is an unimportant issue or distinction. Scientists on both sides of the discussion understand one another. However, change sometimes comes slowly, when conceptual ideology, becomes rooted in public understanding. As example, consider the flat earth. The Greeks understood the earth to be round.., a sphere, a couple hundred years B.C. and yet maps continued to show a flat earth well into at least the 1600s A.D. How much did this slow down exploration and discovery? Not because of a limitation in the understanding of learned philosophers and later scientists, but because the understanding of the general public, hindered the process...
It is not only important how scientists understand things. How the general public understands them is of equal and sometimes more importance. And it does seem that for the general public the concept of relativistic mass, while it simplifies some explanation of special relativity, plants an ideology in the public mind that leads to later conflict.
So now you wish to continue your red herring of relativistic mass (only as a logical fallacy in the attempt to discredit a reliable reference while not addressing the actual content of the reference relevant to our discussion). What does this have to do with the uncertainty principle? You know, other than you wanting to reduce actual science to "philosophy and semantics", which seem to be the most you can handle, if that much. And what does this have to do with those quotes of mine?
We have been disagreeing only on your inability to comprehend the science.
A particle is a localization; a wave is a motion. A particle cannot be a motion any more than a wave can be a highly localized object. A macroscopic particle can be in motion and a macroscopic wave can consist of localized objects, but this is not found to be true of the analogous quantum phenomena.
No doubt, you will continue to ignore any of the copious references which state the following:
You fallaciously tried to refute the HyperPhysics reference with your non sequitur relativistic mass, but you have yet to offer any argument directly against the above statement in any reference I have provided you. Seems all you have are uninformed troll tactics rather than any logical arguments.
And your beliefs are not substantial arguments.
No reason to continue humoring your red herring.
Oddly enough, the bulk of your post is pontificating this red herring, with no substantive argument relevant to our discussion. Just one big dodge.
I believe this started with my post below. My initial intent had not been to argue that the uncertainty principle was solely a measurement issue. I was attempting to point out that until the uncertainty in simultaneous measurements could be resolved, the underlying uncertainty within the theoretical model could not be confirmed.
The relativistic mass issue came up when I questioned the inclusion of a relativistic mass calculator in one of your links. That is a discussion and at times a debate that has been going on for a very long time. Which does not negate the logic and reasoning, of either side of the issue. There seems no immediate resolution at hand.
It does not seem that there is any purpose in the discussion at this point. Though I have attempted to post my, as you correctly identified it, opinion(s), on the subject several times, with links to off site references on the discussion, you seem bent on attempting to attack me rather than present any reasonable argument of your own.
In re-reading the discussion now twice, I am even uncertain that you have taken the time to read through the referenced links I provided. I have read through those you provided, and then responded not just with a quote and link but, an attempt at discussion.
It is true that there is almost always some philosophical aspect to the way I approach many of these issues. That is a luxury that time has allowed me. The chance to try and think through arguments I once took on faith, for myself.
If one could extract the genuine comment from the personal attacks, there might be room for discussion. Just so you don't waste a great deal of your time, I don't know you and the personalized content of your posts means less than nothing to me. So, present your position and address the post and/or my position. Try to enter into a genuine discussion.
There is little in the way of discussion in your posts, (included without quoted offsite references, below). Just posting a quote does not make a discussion.
The relativistic mass issue came up when I questioned the inclusion of a relativistic mass calculator in one of your links. That is a discussion and at times a debate that has been going on for a very long time. Which does not negate the logic and reasoning, of either side of the issue. There seems no immediate resolution at hand.
It does not seem that there is any purpose in the discussion at this point. Though I have attempted to post my, as you correctly identified it, opinion(s), on the subject several times, with links to off site references on the discussion, you seem bent on attempting to attack me rather than present any reasonable argument of your own.
In re-reading the discussion now twice, I am even uncertain that you have taken the time to read through the referenced links I provided. I have read through those you provided, and then responded not just with a quote and link but, an attempt at discussion.
It is true that there is almost always some philosophical aspect to the way I approach many of these issues. That is a luxury that time has allowed me. The chance to try and think through arguments I once took on faith, for myself.
If one could extract the genuine comment from the personal attacks, there might be room for discussion. Just so you don't waste a great deal of your time, I don't know you and the personalized content of your posts means less than nothing to me. So, present your position and address the post and/or my position. Try to enter into a genuine discussion.
There is little in the way of discussion in your posts, (included without quoted offsite references, below). Just posting a quote does not make a discussion.
Yes, I know. A complete red herring to avoid addressing the point. You can drop it already, as I see right through your nonsense.
In this case, I don't require anything but empirical fact. Your inability to comprehend the facts does not diminish their reasonableness nor effectiveness. I've told you what I think, with references to support my reasoning. You've yet to provide an ounce of counter-argument. Just distracting arm waving.
What links? Have you posted any that have to do with the uncertainty principle? If you're so concerned, perhaps you should repost them to refresh my memory.
I'm here to discuss actual physics. I'm unable to decipher what you are here to discuss, as you dodge actual physics in lieu of philosophical arm waving. Word count does not a valid argument make. Nor do the bevy of logical fallacies you use.
You're probably right though...you do seem to be a complete waste of time if I expect someone who wants to discuss physics.
You are right I never posted a link involving the uncertainty principle. I was never challenging the principle itself. The links I posted were to papers and articles that address the relativistic mass issue, after you took up an opposing perspective. I should also note that the Hyperphysics link that included the relativistic mass calculator was not one you posted. I linked that one to demonstrate a point.
Following is a quote from one of your links on the uncertainty principle, which is just what I was saying and referenced myself, from another source, before you entered the discussion. Though measurement does not cause uncertainty, the fact that you cannot simultaneously carry out both measurements, ties measurement to the results.., empirical results.
BTW that was from the best of the few links you provided.
We can measure either but not both at the same time. That prevents any empirical evidence of any underlying uncertainty. It does not mean that there is no underlying uncertainty. It simply prevents the theoretical, from being supported by empirical observation.
I don't think any of your references include any description of empirical evidence, supporting the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty is what we can know about a particle and that is tied to measurement...
That portion of your post in red below just demonstrates that there is something personal going on with you. There is no discussion going on, when so much of your posting seems directed at the poster rather than the subject(s).
If you provided any empirical evidence on the issue, I missed it. I don't think there is any, but then QM is not my favorite subject.
Following is a quote from one of your links on the uncertainty principle, which is just what I was saying and referenced myself, from another source, before you entered the discussion. Though measurement does not cause uncertainty, the fact that you cannot simultaneously carry out both measurements, ties measurement to the results.., empirical results.
The uncertainty principle also called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or Indeterminacy Principle, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.
BTW that was from the best of the few links you provided.
We can measure either but not both at the same time. That prevents any empirical evidence of any underlying uncertainty. It does not mean that there is no underlying uncertainty. It simply prevents the theoretical, from being supported by empirical observation.
I don't think any of your references include any description of empirical evidence, supporting the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty is what we can know about a particle and that is tied to measurement...
That portion of your post in red below just demonstrates that there is something personal going on with you. There is no discussion going on, when so much of your posting seems directed at the poster rather than the subject(s).
If you provided any empirical evidence on the issue, I missed it. I don't think there is any, but then QM is not my favorite subject.
Do you even read what you write? "... ties measurement to the results"? You mean the measuring isn't independent of the reading of the measurement? Nothing like stating the painfully obvious.
Here, let me fix this quote, you posted, to emphasize what you keep glossing over:
Wrong. We can very easily measure both properties of an uncertainty relationship at the same time. We get actual measurements of each, and these reflect a deviation from what we'd expect to get (empirically verified with separate measurements). This deviation is found to have a consistent relationship between certain properties.
The difference is that the above is an ad hominem where my comments are completely demonstrable.
I would have thought it obvious myself. This started back in posts 756 to 760, where I initially raised the measurement issue. I keep restating it because it has seemed that you were taking issue with the statement.
What is it you believe the portion, of the following quote, in bold and underlined is saying or means?
The uncertainty principle also called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or Indeterminacy Principle, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.
The way I read it is.., position is static.., fixed, while velocity is moving, i.e. when an object has some velocity, its position is changing.., (both again obvious), so you cannot know the exact (instantaneous) position of a moving object! Not a real issue for cars and planes, but a significant issue for subatomic particles, often with relativistic velocities.
Syne said:
One of the links you provided, Uncertainty principle, did suggest as much, but failed to cite a reference. In fact though it seems to be a University of Oregon FAQ on the issue, there were no references cited.
Take another look at the quote, with my original emphasis,
The uncertainty principle also called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or Indeterminacy Principle, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.
I am not an expert on QM but I do read a bit. I don't remember any reference to an experiment where both position and momentum have been measured simutaneously. As far as discussion goes, that would be a good reference to include. Preferably one that references the source.., paper, experiment etc..
You keep ignoring the qualifier "exactly". It is only the accuracy of simultaneous measurements that is in question, not the ability to make simultaneous measurements. Every credible reference for the uncertainty principle is rife with qualifiers such as "accuracy", "precision", and "exactly". If you've missed these then either your cognitive bias has gotten the better of you or you simply don't understand the significance.
Even the most basic popularizations on the subject make it quite clear that simultaneous measurements are routinely done. It is simply the accuracy of one is sacrificed for the greater accuracy of the other.
I've asked you before, without answer, how exactly would you expect to take a measurement with a device and magically get no result? That only happens when you refuse to read the device, but the device records a measurement regardless.
No. The HUP states categorically that it is not possible to simultaneously measure the position and momentum of a particle precisely. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of measurement (i.e. how well calibrated the measurement apparatus is).Syne said:
That is, the HUP says if you know the position to some arbitrary precision, you simultaneously can know nothing about the momentum of a particle. So it is about the ability to make measurements. It isn't possible even in principle to measure both simultaneously.
Just as OnlyMe, you also seem to be confusing "no possibility for simultaneous measurement" with "no possibility for precise simultaneous measurement", even though you use the qualifier yourself. How can you say "it is not possible to simultaneously measure... precisely" and then turn right around and say "it has nothing to do with the accuracy"? Precisely and accurately are synonyms. That is just blatantly self-contradictory.
And who said a thing about calibration? Such measuring devices are assumed well-calibrated, otherwise it is erroneous science.
You still get a measurement of both position and momentum, even when seeking to resolve one to an arbitrary precision. The less certain of the two is simply a reflection on how much the act of precisely measuring one alters what would have been the other, if it had been the one chosen for precise measurement.
Or are you also trying to say that measuring devices magically quit working due to our capricious choice of which property we wish to better resolve?
Well, there's your problem. Precision and accuracy aren't synonymous.Syne said:
If you can calibrate some device precisely, then it will make measurements which are accurate, to within the (experimental) errors involved in the process of measurement.
A counterexample to your claim is this: if you have precisely calibrated slits in a double slit apparatus then a single incident particle has a precise position when it passes through them. But that means the direction it has towards a detector screen is not known (until, of course, it reaches the screen).
O.K. then, post a link to one experiment.
I have looked. I found a reference, a paper from 2004, that suggested an experiment. It does not seem to have been followed up on....
And, I found a popular reference, in Scientific American, to a double slit expriment,
What quantum physicist Aephraim Steinberg of the University of Toronto in Canada and his colleagues have now shown, however, is that it is possible to precisely measure photons' position and obtain approximate information about their momentum, in an approach known as 'weak measurement'.
Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change. http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle
Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change. http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle
There was no reference to an original paper and it does not sound like a simultaneous measurement from the article. One detector or measuring device was in front of the other and the uncertainty in the momentum measurement was at least in part due to the method of measurement.
I still see no way, that both an instantaneous position and momentum for a photon or subatomic particle can be measured.., simultaneously...
Provide a link.., to something other than a blog, FAQ with no supporting references or popular magazine article.
That might still be OK "precisely measure photons' position and obtain approximate information about their momentum" might not less than the Heisenberg Uncertainty Limit. You can have simultaneous measurements but the more precise one is the less precise will be the other but that only kicks in when the product of the two reach the limit. There is no problems refining experimental method right up to the limit.
Well that is how I understand it. For each part is the measurement taken simultaneously.
Well that is how I understand it. For each part is the measurement taken simultaneously.
If you were referring to the Canadian experiment from my post, the measurements were not simutaneous. One detector was placed in front of the other.
- Status