confused by Bell

According to Bell the following generalised statement applies:

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum theory."

If this is the case for any one theory then that theory is flawed and should should not be considered as a theory at all.

If there can ever be such a thing as a real theory of local hidden variables then it will reproduce all of the predictions of QM and it will predict what can be observed. The problem is that the details of such a theory are not yet known and nor are the details and subtleties of any detection methods known.

 How then can Bell and his followers make generalised statements about all theories without a detailed knowledge of those theories?

http://www.toptenmistakesinphysics.com/

Go to www.toptenmistakesinphysics.com

work can be done by magnetic forces?Or can it not?

Well, can magnetic forces do work or not?The discussions on this topic seem to go on ad nauseum, but one thing that a majority seem to agree upon is that the magnetic (Bqv) part of the Lorentz force cannot do work on an unconstrained(or even constrained,depending on your point of view) moving charged particle.To be more precise there is no movement of the charged particle in the direction of the force.Looking at it another way ,the application of the magnetic force alone does not result in any energy changes.

Assuming that the magnetic field (Bqv) cannot do work on the particle does it mean that it cannot do work on anything?There seem to be many people who answer this question in the affirmative.Despite this it is easy to imagine events where work is done.Consider the following:

An observer is in a frame of reference such that there is a system setting up a B field which is observed to be stationary.A particle of charge q and velocity v then enters the field such that  it experiences the Bqv force. As a result the particle moves in its curved path.
All the time there is the force on the particle there is an equal and opposite force on that part of the system that sets up the B field (Newton's third law).The result is that this system moves from its initially observed state of rest.Due to momentum considerations this movement may be considered to be negligible but nevertheless there is movement and a transfer of energy.
If you are one of those who believe that the magnetic can not do work then here is just one of the questions that arises.What is the force/mechanism that is instrumental in the magnetic system picking up kinetic energy?

(Of course the whole event is much more involved than merely that which has been described above but I couldn't be bothered to write any more about it at the moment)

rest mass variability

Try googling the title above or variations  of  it and you will come up with hits.The possibility that rest mass of particles can vary has been given some consideration ,particularly it seems in relation to gravitational theory.

Something that seems to have both been recognised yet strangely overlooked(or given scant consideration) is the strong possibility,based on well established experimental evidence that rest masses of particles in electrical fields,depends on the structure of the field in terms of the locations of the interacting particles.In short,particles such as electrons and protons have rest masses which are frame dependant.The rest mass of a particle depends on the structure of the rest frame and the location of the particles within it.

At this point a lot of physicists might dismiss the idea claiming that it is at odds with special relativity.Such dismissive claims are easily rejected.It is easy to show that the concept of a frame dependant rest mass is not at odds with relativity at all.In fact it is special relativity that provides the strongest evidence that rest mass is variable.The variability referred to here is incredibly small and in general hardly makes any difference to those problems solved by using relativity.Small though the variability is(perhaps better described as negligible in most applications)the variability can be measured and has been measured.

Does variability disprove special relativity?In short the answer is no.

More to come tomorrow

The number zero

if zero is considered to be a number in its own right then it can lead to odd results when trying to perform certain mathematical operations with it ,such as dividing by zero.

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU DIVIDE A  FINITE NUMBER BY ZERO?

There are likely to be different responses to the question such as "it can't be done"or the answer is "indeterminate" or even "infinite".A good answer would be that from an applied maths point of view dividing by zero is a futile exercise.

WHY FUTILE?

As an example consider an equation of the type:

                                             y=k/x          (k could be a constant)


We could describe that as x gets smaller y gets bigger.It is a good description and one that can be used in both pure and applied maths.But at some point the two branches of maths will begin to differ.Pure(theoretical) mathematicians may consider that x can continue to get smaller,it can approach zero and even, perhaps, reach zero.
Applied mathematicians will know that there are limits to the smallness of x and that x cannot reach zero.Exactly what those limits are depend on the equation under consideration and it should be the job of an applied mathematician to try to gain a full awareness of the limitations of the equations used.

Where physicists go wrong (an introduction)

The title may be a bit strong and perhaps it would be better to describe this introductory section as "some things that physicists have overlooked".Some of the said "things" that I have noticed are not trivial and really should be considered and considered serously.

The first little section will point out some of the misconceptions concerned with binding energy.This section will be published here very soon,tomorrow possibly,or perhaps not.

Time for a drop of jollop now.I'm going to go posh and partake of a port.

Nighty night

Well, it could be the Higgs

It's the 8th July and,well,it could be the Higgs(ooh deja vu).Certain science journalists and science popularisers seem to be claiming that it is the Higgs whereas Cern is rightly being more cautious and amongst other things stating that more testing is needed.
Whatever the outcome it seems reasonably certain that a new particle has been detected.Physics theorists will now be able to pick up their pencils and try to figure out things  in more detail due to them being armed with this new experimental data.In this regard I am going to publish here a series of physics snippets(one every now and then) that they need to consider when doing their sums and whatever else stuff they do.It's just a few little odds and ends that some of them may have overlooked in the past.

ps Why do certain scientists and science popularisers tend to present certain things as if they are absolute immutable truths.Said people need a major injection of skepticism mixed,perhaps,with a dash of crackpottery.Just rambling here,oh and make sure you read the bit below before you read this bit.

Higgs found or Higgs fail?

It's July 4 2012 and  it seems that Cern have announced the apparent discovery of something with an effective mass of approximately 125GeV.Could it be the Higgs boson,the so called God particle(or goddammit particle as some prefer to call it)or could it be something else?I haven't seen any detailed reports yet but it seems quite interesting so I might look into it.
Yes,I have just decided to extend my knowledge of the standard model and do a bit more reading up on it.Before I do so just one question comes to mind:
If the Higgs boson is instrumental in setting up the Higgs field which is instrumental in endowing particles with mass then from where does the mass of the Higgs boson come from?

(I know what you're thinking.You're thinking that I'm just being daft or trying to wind you up.If you're not thinking that you could be thinking something else)

Quantum Superpositions fail

Just recently I have been discussing and scanning through some of the details of  newer quantum superposition type experiments,those which are moving away from the microscopic and into the inreasingly macroscopic.It makes fairly interesting reading but much of the popular press and the scientific press which targets the lay readership seem to have  a tendency to sex things up and make claims about bizarre superpositions.What I am interested in is finding out how many experts in the field,if any,believe that such superpositions can be a reality.Take,for example,the squid experiment.Can currents really be in superposition?
Allow me to express it differently:
1.Can an electron flow from left to right and right to left at the same time?
2.Can something be vibrating at the same time when it is not vibrating?
There are other similar questions that can be asked.
If you believe that superpositions of the type outlined above can really happen then go to the seaside with a can of Tizer and a packet of crisps and just relax a little.You should soon recover and realise that all such superposions are totally impossible.If you don't believe it read what I wrote about the most famous imagined superposition of them all,that old cat.Yes I know that there are two pieces on the same topic.When I can be bothered I will do a bit of editing and blend the two into one.

Schrodingers Cat experiment fails

Certain interpretations of quantum theory ,when applied to Schrodingers experiment,make seemingly bizarre and counter intuititive predictions such as a cat being in a mixed state of, to put it crudely, being both alive and dead at the same time.
It was Schrodingers intention to point out that such states are nonsensical and that at any particular time the cat will either be alive or dying or dead.In other words general knowledge and common sense must prevail when interpreting quantum theory.
Grand though Schrodingers intention was his experiment fails to provide proof of either his preferred common sense interpretation or the la la land lets dance with the fairies views given by interpretations such as Copenhagen or Many Worlds.
Why's that you ask and well you might.The answer,quite simply,is that Schrodingers experiment is designed in such a way that the observations necessary to back up any interpretation can't be made during the crucial and relevant time that the contents of the box are isolated from the surroundings.
I know what's coming next. Many will say "it's a thought experiment so it doesn't matter if some observations are disallowed".Well it does matter because to be given any credence at all a theory or any interpretation of a theory must be verifiable,even if just in principle,by observations.No possible observations equates to no possible proof which equates "it can't be physics so it must be something like metaphysics".
The experimental design is such that observations are eventually allowed for example by opening the box and taking a peek inside.All interpretations then predict that what will be observed is the outcome predicted by common sense (but the loopy interpretationists still insist that strange things were going on before we looked)

I would like to finish this little section by stating that it is time to put more common sense back into physics.Next,when I get round to it and if I can be bothered I will describe a few ways of putting macroscopic objects(as big as you like) into a superposition of states and show that such superpositions conform to the laws of common sense.But then I might be kidding.