Tuesday, December 13, 2005

On Blogging and Experiment

Variation of the Standard Two-Pin-hole "welcher-Weg" Optics Experiment

George R. Welch setting up an optics experiment with graduate student Sophia Ilina

Uncertain Principles :
So, “A Week in the Lab” has come to an end. The experiment itself goes on, of course, but the week of blogging the experiment is at an end.

As physics, it wasn’t terribly successful– the experiment didn’t succeed, after all. As a life-in-science blogging event, I think it worked pretty well. I got to cover a fair range of the experimental physics process, from the basic design stuff, to the nuts-and-bolts assembly, to the prelimanry calibration measurements, to the process of figuring things out from sketchy data, to the frustration of an incomplete experiment. I wouldn’t call it the most successful week of my experimental physics career, but I think I might be happier with how this played out than anything else I’ve done on this blog. I’ll have to look back at it again in a couple of weeks and see if I still feel that way, but at least at this early stage, I like the results.

So I thought I would point you to another case. I mean sure there is going to be trials and errors.

I was pointed to the failure of the system of blogging that did not seem up to par with a link given by Sean in regards to experimentation and it's falure? While I see it as a success, presented in the following way.

The Ties that Bind?
John Cramer:)
The Blind Men and The Quantum (1,338k) - The First Hal Clement Memorial Lecture, given at the Boskone 41 Science Fiction Convention, Boston Sheraton Hotel, February 15, 2004. A 50 minute discussion of quantum paradoxes and interpretations, with emphasis on new data (The Afshar Experiment) that appears to falsify the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations, but is consistent with the Transactional Interpretation.

It sort of stays in the family.:)

kathryn cramer
The Transactional Interpretation, which involves a forward/back in time handshake, is one of the few (perhaps the only) interpretation(s) left standing after the Afshar test.

Why is it so important? If scientific perspective had been isolated from the vast resources of people spread throughout such probabilistic valuations in science? In consideration, how would chance have it, that someone could comment on the experimentation? Help the experimentor, and discuss it from a theoretical standpoint how such and such should go? Lubos comment section helps greatly here to assess how this might have gone?

Shahriar S. Afshar
Dear Lubos,

"Therefore we have humiliated Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, the Copenhagen interpretation, complementarity, the uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics as well as the rest of physics."

From the content of your response, I can only conclude that you have not fully read my preprint:

Now that the process has been seen in this context of blogging potential I thought I would add one more for consideration? In terms of what Aldeberger had to say to those on Cosmic Variance in terms of those extra dimensions and the experimental process Evotos is unfolding in this regard.

No comments:

Post a Comment