Marty Green

819 reputation

310

bio	website	marty-green.blogspot.com
	location	Canada
	age
visits	member for	2 years
	seen	yesterday
stats	profile views	337

	819 reputation	bio	website	marty-green.blogspot.com	visits	member for	2 years
310 badges		location	Canada		seen	yesterday

summary answers questions tags badges favorites bounties reputation activity

291 Actions

suggestions reviews revisions comments badges posts accepts all

May 31	comment	Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula? When the grid period is longer than the wavelength you get multiple maxima and your analyisis is relevant. For practical applications of this kind of filter I think the period is supposed to be much smaller than the wavelength, so we are only interested in the central maximum. Another point: your intensity is proportional to the open area, but at assumes the light hitting the grid is simply absorbed. For the ideal conducting grid case, the currents flowing in the edges are very significant and lead to different results.
May 31	comment	Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula? There are some interesting complications I didn't include in my calculations relating to current distribution across the strips. As the strips get thinner, the current seems to want to bunch up near the edges. This throws my power calculation of a bit; but more importantly, it is suggestive of what happens with charge buildup in the cross-cut case. I wonder if the distributions are the same?
May 31	comment	Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula? Thanks, Jim. Yes, I'd like to do the other polarization but I'm finding it much harder. I'm very tempted to think that the 377-ohm case embodies a kind of complimentarity, where both polarizations will yield similar formulas. But I'm not very close to putting it together.
May 30	awarded	Editor
May 30	revised	Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula? added 3430 characters in body
May 30	comment	Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula? As I tried to explain in my answer, the relative cross-section area of the wires is irrelevant. Only their resistance matters. If you are assuming ideal (perfectly conducting) wires, then the transmission is zero for all 99 filters.
May 29	answered	Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
May 28	comment	Quantizing EM field Yes! Yes! Yes! It can't be wrong. It has to be an equally valid alternative.
May 28	comment	Bell Tests using position measurement I'm grateful to the "community" for poking this question; I'm presuming on the grounds that it has gone unanswered. I have to say I was never satisfied with AC's answer: a) because I think I am asking for a demonstration of one of the very simplest cases of entanglement; b), because I don't believe PDC photons have the spatial "anti-coherence" necessary for my experiment as would, say, photons from the decay of positronium; c), because experiments like I describe, even WITHOUT the polarizers, should logically have predated the whole fuss generated by Bell in the sixties.
May 26	comment	Does decoherence explain all instances of wave function collapse? I just read the interesting paper referenced by Lubos in this earlier discussion: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4284/… and I have to say that some of the comments which prompted my interjection now make more sense to me than they did yesterday. Marek is probably right that I would be less interested in the choice problem; it is only now that I understand that in decoherence, these are indeed two separate problems.
May 26	comment	A tutorial explanation of decoherence? I'm going to have to add my upvote for the paper Lubos has linked to.
May 25	comment	Why does a rotating tire use the static, rather than the dynamic coefficient of friction? It's hard to believe this answer was downvoted because he's the only one who makes the very important point about micro sliding.
May 25	comment	Does decoherence explain all instances of wave function collapse? Are you people ever going to answer the question?
May 24	answered	Bell Test statistics
May 23	comment	Does decoherence explain all instances of wave function collapse? @Peter I'm glad you found my blog, even though it's more just a collection of random articles than a blog. I hope you read my article on Quantum Siphoning: it's from March of 2010 and the link is marty-green.blogspot.com/2010/03/quantum-siphoning.html
May 23	comment	Does decoherence explain all instances of wave function collapse? @Peter One of the very best math puzzles ever starts of with Mr. S and Mr. P facing each other. S is thinking about the sum of two numbers between 1 and 100, and P is thinking about their product. Neither knows what the numbers are. Mr S begins: I don't know what your number is. P replies And I don't know what yours is. S replies: Now I know what your number is. And S concludes: And now I know yours. In that vein, Peter, I'm glad you think you know what I'm thinking; but I'd still like to know what you think I'm thinking.
May 23	comment	Does decoherence explain all instances of wave function collapse? @Peter I'm gratified that you're interested in how I would counter your argument, but at the same time I wish I knew how you think I'm looking at it. As far as I'm understanding, you're simply saying that decoherence doesn't explain it. That's hardly an argument, and as such, I don't know why you'd expect me to try and knock it down. Did you understand that I posted this question as a kind of "put up or shut up" challenge to people who said that decoherence explains everything?
May 23	comment	Historical background of wave function collapse @Alex If your English were not better than my Russian we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
May 23	comment	Historical background of wave function collapse @Alex Could you give me a page number where the flecks are explained? I can't find it. As for examples not existing: I asked for examples of experiments that led people to formulate certain ideas. You may argue that the examples are discredited but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The paper you cite certainly does not make such a claim.
May 23	comment	Does decoherence explain all instances of wave function collapse? Over the last few days I have posted questions unsuccessfully trying to elicit examples of what is meant by collapse of the wave function. No one has volunteered any such examples; however, some people have said there is no such thing as collapse because decoherence explains everything. This brings us to the present question.