There is more that than, it was a Two-Element Metaphysics that runs through Plato's work, and that Aristotle did not quite grasp. Aristotle had a foot in two worlds.Quote:
Originally Posted by LxANN
Had it been developed, had what Plato saw been developed, a great many things would be different today.
You are a great deal smarter than you pretend to be, but you regard the crowd too much, and thus you are not entirely honest.
I enjoy reading about Metaphysics, I just now am starting to read about Two-Element Metaphysics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
No one really developed it. It has to be done. That is why I hate seemlingly wasting my time here.Quote:
Originally Posted by LxANN
I believe you've made progress getting the knowledge out there, now I am interested in Metaphysics, Two-Element Metaphysics. I will share it with as many people who care to become knowledgeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
The search for knowledge and epistemology is a human ability that has been practiced maybe as far back as before the human species and continues till this day, not the ability of a few historical ego's. Giving too much credit to the famous people of tradition blocks you from a self-reliance that makes you say I'll think about it from scratch on my own and I'll believe someone else when I've come up with the same conclusion or it makes perfect sense to me through all self doubt. What's special here is what they did, what people have always done and can do now, not them.Quote:
Originally Posted by LxANN
http://leadershipfreak.files.wordpre.../open-door.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
They came up with the principles, which makes them special, to me at least. They explained them, how to comprehend them as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
I'm sorry, that must be my opinion.
What principles? Sorry, I haven't read their works very much, but I don't doubt they may have been the first recorded to ask certain questions.
I honestly don't want to get into it right now, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
I'm already stressed enough with personal issues outside of this site.
Ok, don't worry about it, hope you feel better though.
Thank you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
Oh Jesus.. those bloody greeks had one basic problem: they thought a lot, but they didn't do.. and that's why their empire got usurped.
Anyone spot the modern DV parameter?
Action ALWAYS pisses on "thought"..
Have you ever actioned before you thought?
A lot of people go to jail that way.
Plato and Aristotle stand out because they did focus on different concepts than their predecessors. Before Plato philosophers focused primarily on ontological questions (Ex: Heraclitus believed everything to be composed of fire) Plato addresses ontological issues but turns the focus of philosophic inquiry to epistemology and ethics. Aristotle focused on the natural world and basically founded formal logic, biology, and physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
These philosophers are not irrelevant (although yes Aristotle believed the sun to revolve around the earth but an error in his logic doesn't throw all his work out the window) in my opinion. When I first became interested in philosophy I said fuck Plato and Aristotle too and jumped right into Nietzsche and the postmodernists but now I regret starting out that way and am starting from the beginning of western philosophy starting at Plato.
No one is forcing anyone to read anything but if you are going to argue why Plato and Aristotle are irrelevant then it would be a good idea to be acquainted with their philosophies so you can adequately argue against them.
I'm not trying to argue against them, I'm just saying compared to jumping right into thinking for yourself, they are irrelevant aside from being a part of history. I consider them totally irrelevant to me right now because we know much more now, they're only artifacts of curious minds in history. I totally respect them for that, and because of that I'd rather continue their ways in a new era, not worship petty personal details about them and their writings.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Who is worshiping petty personal details about them?
"but now I regret starting out that way and am starting from the beginning of western philosophy starting at Plato."
Why? I guess I'm saying that they are kind of petty details now in a new age where the spirit they possessed works on, I like to think of philosophy as a perpetually new activity that humans do, not an accumulation of writings from eras of outdated knowledge.
Because I feel that I don't have an adequate understanding of philosophy. At the time I figured that anything that anyone said 2000 years ago must be wrong.
Basically if the history of philosophy is a big book, in my blind eagerness, I started at the very end and was surprised when I discovered that I didn't know as much as I thought I did.
Have you ever looked around you and asked yourself "Why?" something is the way it is "What is beyond?" that or "Which way?" is best for this? You have an adequate understanding of philosophy.
Conscience and consciousness.
Hi there. You're basically living in a continuation of Ancient Greece that started with the Renaissance. Enjoy your stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiro
Seriously dude, good luck taking on an atom bomb with your bare fists.
Howso?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePieMan
Not exactly what this thread's been meant for, but still marginally relevant to the topic, plus it's interesting:
7 Simple Questions You Won't Believe Science Just Answered | Cracked.com
FWIW,
Tim
I seriously do not believe such a simple thing exists that science cannot explain.
Take consciousness, for example. Consciousness is the flow of external stimuli through a processing filter, while constantly rotated in and out of working memory, where it is further processed by a brain.
However, science cannot explain things that are false or unexplainable inherently. I bet nobody can explain why 1+1 = 0; it simply doesn't equal zero!
I know, it's occurred to me a long, long time ago that I misworded the thread topic. I really mean things that science has not yet explained, and by "simple things" I really meant simple things that we take for granted, NOT all-encompassing, complex things like "life and consciousness" :lol:
This isn't an explanation of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by ludr
"F***ing magnets, how do they work?"
How they work is simple. Why they work... That's a whole other story.Quote:
Originally Posted by moskowfreak1111
To be honest the basis of magnets is pretty close to the fundamentals of physics. Magnetism is just something that happens; it's a law, or axiom, like the constancy of the speed of light. It can't be explained.
Not ever? Not even someday?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And the Greek culture and philosophy was basically a continuation of the Indo/European fertile crescent/Egyptian and Indian Buddhist philosophies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm not aware of that. Can you give some good examples of those cultures emphasising intellectual autonomy and questioning the basis of the wisdom of authority as Socrates did? Or appealing to rigorous proof, and building up systems of indubitable knowledge, as Euclid did? These are two of the most important ideas that the Renaissance rediscovered.
With respects to magnetism: just think about it. Any explanation is just a reduction to (more general) observed but unexplained facts; nothing is ever explained a priori. If you ever did 'explain' magnetism it would just be in terms of some even more general unexplained formula of which magnetism is a special case. When you conceptualise an explanation of magnetism, what is it exactly that you are hoping to receive? An explanation that is tactile and intuitive to you as a human, like the explanation of perceived air pressure in terms of lots of tiny billiard balls constantly slamming against your skin? Billiard balls are not really a desirable explanatory mechanism; they are not fundamental, just familiar. The entire concept of objects with volume and solidity only exists on a human scale; on a more fundamental (smaller/more detailed) level these ideas are not real, so to go on explaining things in terms of even more general things we must give up the desire I'm assuming you posses to get tactile explanations, but just accept whatever it is we see down there as fact. Obviously we will never get back to intuitive - that is to say, commonly experienced - ideas as we go deeper and deeper, and further from what is prosaic to us. The current type of explanation for magnetism that you're given now is the only type you'll ever get: an observation. An assertion. Perhaps one day we'll receive an even wider assertion that contains the assertion of magnetism within it. I don't think that's what you're after when you ask how it is that I'm sure you'll never get an 'explanation', but that's just the reality of the situation when you analyse it.
I think that's true in a way. Like you could say "There are these things called Torsons which cause magnets to attract" or whatever but if they don't relate to anything you already know of, like some common thing, you won't understand it anyway. You would have to figure out what Torsons do/their rules etc.
It always leads to more questions and you just have to accept that those Torsons cause magnetism. Maybe one day everything will be proven, but you still just have to learn that these are the rules of these new things you've found.
Is that pretty much what you're saying Xei?
Couldn't you say fields and charges "explain" the observation of magnetism? Couldn't you say the relativity of space and time "explain" the constancy of light? You could define magnetism as the pure observation itself, but isn't the point of science the attempt to look beyond that and seek hidden relationships with other seemingly separate observations and explain them in terms of better pictures and ideas for whats actually going on? Sure, all we have to work with is what we experience, but does that really devalue the explanatory power of science?
Yeah that's what I'm thinking too. It's just another thing you have to accept. Like the sky is blue (most of the time). So you accept that the oppositely charged metals have an attraction to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
I don't think there's a lot more you need to know to explain it.
Jupp. That was kinda my point :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yes, pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
It's interesting you bring up action at a distance. Many philosophers and scientists think this inherently absurd. I do not. I do not see the difference between the assertion 'a particle moves away from a body due to the torsive force acting on the particle' and 'the body constantly sends out a steam of meso-torsive particles. Some of these particles hit the particle in question and cause it to recoil'. I think the latter is just billiard balls again; humans don't ever see action at a distance on their scale, there are always intermediaries. This doesn't mean we should make a general principle out of this and apply it to everything in the universe. There is no a priori argument that makes action at a distance impossible; it's just intuition, and I think intuition just means 'prejudice from expose solely to a certain set of circumstances'. We just have one hypothetical assertion on one hand (the body 'just does' make the particle move away) and another hypothetical assertion on the other (the body 'just does' emit meso-torsives; these cause particles to recoil).
I think you can find parallels here with people who reject quantum physics.
I never said the explanatory power is devalued. I just said what it is, take it or leave it. I'm a man of science myself; I think science is extremely valuable, and if we take explanation to mean showing that complex phenomena have some small, simple set of rules behind them, then science is the very pinnacle of explanation. Science has many different 'points'. The pertinent one to this discussion is explaining a phenomenon via reduction to simpler, more general observations. We just have to accept that with any such explanation, it is going to rest on assertions; the act of explanation cannot go on forever, and nothing can explain itself. There are no 'ultimate explanations' of any particular phenomenon where a human is going to say 'ah yes, I see', and that thing will be completely explained in itself. It just seemed to me that this common assumption was contained within Dannon's question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
Well, there is a difference. One is like an electrical circuit where the charge won't even go through the wire until it is connected to the opposite -ode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The other would be where like a current of electricity going through the wire constantly, ready to be attracted to something else.
I dunno, kind of not much to say about that lol
Neither is absurd though.
Well ya they are objectively different, I just meant not different with respects to the fact that the former isn't any more absurd.
The speed of light was proven to not be constant. They have slowed it down in a laboratory to 45 miles per hour.
Consciousness, awareness, existence, etc. Blows my mind.
Yeah, I thought it wasn't constant either. Even outside a lab. It's just that it's 299,792,458 metres a second in a vacuum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
That's a pointless tangent, Dannon. The speed of light colloquially means 'the speed of light in a vacuum', and as I say, it's constant. This is the fundamental, and extremely important fact. That light slows down in glass and other transparent media is an irrelevant sideshow. The entire meaning of my post is unchanged.
Also you didn't respond to my asking you to back up what you said about philosophy. If it was just another baseless assertion like the Mayans thing (don't take this as an indication I want to start talking about Mayans, I don't), I'm gonna start getting a bit exasperated.
Here's what Xei said only it's Dick Feynman saying it instead. He's sorta one of the dudes that contributed to our modern understanding of electromagnetic phenomena.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8
Here's one more video that seems appropriate. Don't know why. :whyme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw
Actually, they slowed down light to 40 something mph IN A VACUUM at near absolute zero temperatures. They are developing ways to incorporate this into computer technology.
As far as Greek philosophy goes, it was so much influenced by Buddhism (but not Hinduism). The Greeks settled in India, but they couldn't incorporate into the Hindu society because of the caste system but the Buddhists welcomed them. The first images and statues of the Buddha were made by Greek artists. Anyway, most of the Greek philosophies were influenced by Buddhists culture, including logic and stoicism and pyrrohism, etc. Buddha's middle way became Aristotle's Golden mean. Google Greco-Bactria. Greek thought and art also influenced Buddhist thought. Greco-Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Here is a link regarding Greco-Buddhism.It's all there. Eastern Philosophies, unlike American Indian or Mayan teachings, are not only passed down orally, but recorded.Quote:
When Alexander conquered the Bactrian and Gandharan regions, these areas may already have been under Buddhist or Jainist influence. According to a legend preserved in Pali, the language of the Theravada canon, two merchant brothers from Bactria, named Tapassu and Bhallika, visited the Buddha and became his disciples. The legend states that they then returned to Bactria and spread the Buddha's teaching.[2]
In 326 BCE, Alexander invaded India. King Ambhi, ruler of Taxila, surrendered his city, a notable center of Buddhist faith, to Alexander. Alexander fought an epic battle against Porus, a ruler of a region in the Punjab in the Battle of Hydaspes in 326 BCE.
Several philosophers, such as Pyrrho, Anaxarchus and Onesicritus, are said to have been selected by Alexander to accompany him in his eastern campaigns. During the 18 months they were in India, they were able to interact with Indian ascetics, generally described as Gymnosophists ("naked philosophers"). Pyrrho (360-270 BCE) returned to Greece and became the first Skeptic and the founder of the school named Pyrrhonism. The Greek biographer Diogenes Laertius explained that Pyrrho's equanimity and detachment from the world were acquired in India.[3] Few of his sayings are directly known, but they are clearly reminiscent of eastern, possibly Buddhist, thought:
"Nothing really exists, but human life is governed by convention"
"Nothing is in itself more this than that" (Diogenes Laertius IX.61)
Another of these philosophers, Onesicritus, a Cynic, is said by Strabo to have learnt in India the following precepts:
"That nothing that happens to a man is bad or good, opinions being merely dreams"
"That the best philosophy [is] that which liberates the mind from [both] pleasure and grief" (Strabo, XV.I.65[4])
Sir William Tarn wrote that the Brahmans who were the party opposed to the Buddhists always fought with Alexander.
These contacts initiated the first direct interactions between Greek and Indian philosophy, which were to continue and expand for several more centuries.
Regarding things that science cannot explain: when one puts a candle in a large polished crystal bowl, a holographic image of the flame is projected to hover near the top center of the bowl. When two or more (preferably 4) people place their finger so that the projected flame has the illusion of sitting on their fingers we find that the flame is in a different spot for each observer. As each observer moves so that each person sees the flame in the same spot and their fingers are touching, the image of the flame actually becomes very hot. Now here is the part that I wonder if science can explain: 4 people all observing the image of the flame in the same spot. But if an outside person who is passing by glances over at this group of people around the crystal bowl, and if his eyes fall on the image of the flame, the image of the flame actually moves off center from the perspective of the four around the bowl. In order to keep this from happening, the four need to forbid other people who are not participating in this experiment to stay away and not look, even out of curiosity.
How can this happen? How can the observation of a passer-by influence the appearance of the flame to the four who are conducting the experiment, often even unaware that a passer-by is observing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
This is one of the most important quotes of the Buddha that revolutionized culture and keeps Buddhism in check and undermines even the Buddha's words.Quote:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many, even by me. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” - Buddha
That's very interesting, thanks Dannon. Although, the Greeks still were the most important contributors, it seems to me. It sounds like Eastern philosophy inspired a state of total doubt and no real solution to it; the Greeks as a whole incorporated the idea of dogma as an incorrect source of knowledge, but the Renaissance wouldn't have gotten very far with that idea alone; the Greeks also appealed to rationality of oneself as a way of creating new knowledge, embodied by Euclid's elements.
I'd like you to cite this slow light in a vacuum thing, I'm sceptical (as the Buddha instructs me).
This one is interesting: IBM Research - Zurich
This one is the most relevant: Slow Light
But it seems that you are right, that it wasn't in a vacuum.
EDIT: regarding article 'slow light', that was copyrighted in 1999. I believe that since then they have figured out a way to do this in a vacuum and even to stop it. I will keep looking.
Any luck finding a reference for the speed of light in vacuum having been modified?
Were you wrong?
Your explanation is almost exactly what the current explanation actually is, except instead of torsons, its electrons. Just sayin....Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
fixd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I highly recommend the book "Symmetry" by Leon Lederman. It has the best non-technical explanation of gauge fields and their associated gauge bosons (e.g. photons) that I've ever seen.
Oh I honestly didn't know there was any theory. Int'resting....
Kind of cool still that the photons/electrons, whichever one, has a pulling effect on the others. When the distance between them, if you go down to the microscopic level, is like the distance between planets almost. And when it's separate objects, it's an even bigger gap.
EDIT: Fuck! I just realised we were talking about magnets. Yeah I already knew that theory lol
Hadn't been in this thread for a while lol
well................ I'm not going to argue with an incredibly vague reference but magnetism inQuote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
a ferrous metalmatter is associated with the alignment of the electrons in themetalobject. We could get into a whole discussion about the symmetry of fundamental particles, photoelectric effects and the unification of electromagnetism but.... no. All I'll say is;
http://carlbrannen.files.wordpress.c...abmn.jpg?w=700
OH!.....:lol: dur.... you should have said that from the beginning :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
:?
To be honest this is a pretty bizarre post. tommo basically said 'torsons'. In what sense is that an explanation of anything, haha... he didn't even define what a torson is or wtf it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I thought magnetic fields are caused by any moving charge (so a stream of protons would do it)... and the magnetic field around a wire is caused by the movement of electrons, not their alignment... photons are always the carriers though (the force being electromagnetic).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I'm only just starting Maxwell's equations so I could be wrong.
In what sense is "electrons" or "photons" an explanation of anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I assume he was trying to point out that we basically just know nothing about how magnetism happens except that electrons cause it.
Except that isn't true.
Yeah, we can understand magnetism only as far as we understand why there are positive and negative charges that attract and repel each other and, if the field theory is right, why every point in space is caused to possess a direction of force near these charges. As far as I know, these "facts" are where the "just is" border of our knowledge begins.
Photons "mediate" the electromagnetic force. I could cook up some matter that was nothing but protons bound together by the strong force, e.g. an atomic nucleus, and an observer moving past it would measure a magnetic field. As far as the diagram goes, could you explain what the letters are? The squigly lines are usually photons in Feynman diagrams. This looks like a feynman diagram turned on its side in which case that would be a photon decaying into an electron and a positron which then reunite, anhilalate, and produce another photon.
EDIT:
Also, how is the exact title of the book, together with the name of one of the authors "vague"? Also, it's common knowledge that photons carry the electromagnetic force. So I'm really not saying anything weird here...
Its vague because you basically just said "read this book". Without having read the book or having enough time to read the book before posting (unless you think this conversation won't have gone anywhere in the next month or so) I have to take it on faith that the book addresses this topic and contradicts what I said. You didn't offer any actual information from the book so there is no real argument there.
Yeah, the feynmen diagram is a photon becoming an electron and positron, and back again. My point was that fundamental particles are interchangable, or exhibit "symmetry".
To xei, the short answer is; I don't know? I was talking specifically about an object that exhibits magnetism like a bar of magnetized iron, and not a magnetic field caused by charge flow. I'm sure they are related, but it has been so long since I've had formal teaching on the subject that I can't recall exactly how and I'm feeling too lazy to go look it up before posting so that I could appear smarter than I actually am.
Edit: okay okay, my deep seeded need to not be wrong kicked in, a short quote from wikipedia to show what I was refering to with my initial post about electrons;
and then a little more pertaining to what I said about the electrons being aligned:Quote:
In magnetic materials, sources of magnetization are the electrons' orbital angular motion around the nucleus, and the electrons' intrinsic magnetic moment (see electron magnetic dipole moment).
Quote:
Ordinarily, the enormous number of electrons in a material are arranged such that their magnetic moments (both orbital and intrinsic) cancel out. This is due, to some extent, to electrons combining into pairs with opposite intrinsic magnetic moments as a result of the Pauli exclusion principle (see electron configuration), or combining into filled subshells with zero net orbital motion. In both cases, the electron arrangement is so as to exactly cancel the magnetic moments from each electron. Moreover, even when the electron configuration is such that there are unpaired electrons and/or non-filled subshells, it is often the case that the various electrons in the solid will contribute magnetic moments that point in different, random directions, so that the material will not be magnetic.
However, sometimes — either spontaneously, or owing to an applied external magnetic field — each of the electron magnetic moments will be, on average, lined up. Then the material can produce a net total magnetic field, which can potentially be quite strong.
That's just saying that magnatism works because there's a bunch of little magnets all pointing in the same direction...
The explanation is that photons are mediating the electromagnetic force. They are the guage boson associated with electromagnetic fields.
Explaining the book in a post is not reasonable. Since you are interested in science, I would highly recommend reading it. The chapter "The Strange Symmetry of Light" is the relevant one. Briefly, there are "gauge fields" associated with the electronomagnetic field such that if the gauge field is given, then the electromagnetic is uniquely determined. But there are more than one gauge field that can be given for any given electromagnetic field so we can never measure the difference between them. Hence the laws of electromagnetism are "invariant" under a gauge transformation and the photons arise from this.
The strong, weak, and electromagnetic fields are all gauge theories and the symmetries under the gauge transformations give rise the the gauge bosons which mediate the respective forces, 1 for EM, 3 for weak and 8 for strong.
electrons aren't just little magnets (well they are but...) its their angular momentum that plays the biggest role in macro scale magnetization. I don't know what we are even arguing though... photons do transmit electromagnetic forces, but I really don't see how that is any more of an "explanation" of magnetism than "the angular momentum of electrons" or "intrinsic magnetic moment". It seems to me that the concept of spin is more fundamental to any explanation of magnetism than the force carriers.
I'm confused... surely with small velocities we can assume non-relativistic space, but in this situation it seems to be that the existence of a magnetic force depends on the frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
I am not entirely sure I understand your question, and therefore I will probably not be able to answer it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
However magnetic force is dependant on particles moving in relation to each other, as given by the formula for the Lorenz Force (which is electromagnetic force)
F = q(E + (v x B))
Assuming there's no electric field, the formula is reduced to
F = q(v x B)
Where q is an electric charge, v is the velocity of the particle with charge q and B is a magnetic field. This clearly shows that magnetism can only exist between particles that move in relation to each other.
As far as I can understand, though, it should be independent of your frame of reference.
I worded that statement poorly. I've been thinking a lot about local measurements so I pictured an observer moving past the nucleus with a test charge. The motion would lead to the magnetic field but all observers moving non-relativisticly would measure it.
What are your favourite simple things that science just cannot explain?
What was there before the Big Bang and what triggered it?
If space-time was created at the moment of the Big Bang, the question of what came "before" is meaningless. Causality came after the Big Bang.
Such a simple question huh?
This thread failed because everyone posted complicated shit.
Because pretty much every simple thing has already been explained.
Haha yeah seriously, the original point was WAY missed. "What happened before the universe" is NOT a simple, observable thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
I was thinking more about things like the shower curtain effect, which amazingly, is still not understood. There are all sorts of hypotheses about it, but no conclusive answer has been reached. this isn't because science can't, it's just there are more important things to do.
I think Crooke's Radiometer has only been solved conclusively very recently (if at all - I THINK they finally got to the bottom of that one, but am not sure).
I heard somewhere (haven't tested myself) that if you take two pieces of polarized material (e.g. 3d glasses from the theater), and hold them at 90 degrees (such that no light passes through), and then interpose a THIRD piece in between the two at a 45 degree angle, it becomes clear again, and that scientists have no clue why. I have yet to test this myself, and I have yet to find out if it's true that scientists have no clue why.
But I love these simple little unknowns. :) That was the original point of the thread hehe.
Basic quantum mechanics. Definitely true. Definitely understood. The light coming out of the first polarizer is definitely in the state that's polarized at the angle of the first polarizer. When the second polarizer is introduced at 90 degrees to the first one, the chance of measuring the photon in that state of polarization is 0. It's definitely polarized at a right angle to the second sheet because of the first polarizer. Hence zero photons get through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
However when you introduce the third sheet between them, then each photon coming out of the first sheet has a 50 percent chance to be measured as polarized in accordance with the third sheet. The ones that are measured to be aligned with the third sheet (i.e. the ones that get through) are now definitely polarized at 45 degrees relative to both the first and second sheet. Hence when they hit the second sheet, they have a 50 percent chance of getting through. So in all, with the three sheets lined up right, you get 25% of the original photons. This is not "clear" but it is see through.
Here's a cool one
The Oh-My-God Particle
I hope you enjoy this film shown on BBC 2 entitled, 'What Happened "Before" the Big Bang'Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg
Part 2 Deleted due to complaints from the BBC ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7vTQ3Z9fmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-GmZaJxLY&list=PL479413265B9FB954&index=4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSCMEO0Z3M0&list=PL479413265B9FB954&index= 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzgcSxBIMGM&list=PL479413265B9FB954&index= 6
Laura Mersini-Houghton.... wow.