Two Existing Non Existing Objects?

[sigurdV]

Suppose we have two wave generators within the lab

and they are producing two "objects" (sinus waves)

interfering with each other so they cannot be detected.

 

Its awkward to describe the situation:

 

Two non existing objects exists simultaneously in the lab

with no other way of detecting them

than asking where the energy fed into the wave generators go?

Aint this experiment weird?

What is wrong?

[cal]

Suppose we have two wave generators within the lab

and they are producing two "objects" (sinus waves)

interfering with each other so they cannot be detected.

By "sinus" waves, I assume you mean Sine waves?

 

Also, interference can be easily detected, as it usually directly interferes with whatever you're measuring. Also, I believe you're really talking about when waves counter-act each other and negate their waveforms, which is actually quite hard to do since there are so many other waves happening in any given environment and interference usually occurs. But I'll go with the idea that this is a controlled experiment and only two sine waves (or cosine, square, whatever) exist in this lab and they are cancelling each other out. Not only can the waves from creation to destruction be detected, but their cancellation can be detected, observed, and monitored. If they couldn't, then we'd have a very difficult time observing our universe through the electromagnetic spectrum (which uses sine or sine-like waves).

 

 

Two non existing objects exists simultaneously in the lab

with no other way of detecting them

than asking where the energy fed into the wave generators go?

Aint this experiment weird?

What is wrong?

The premise is what's wrong. Non-existing things do not exist. To presuppose that two objects exist you cannot say they don't, it creates a logically fallacy. If you ask where the energy fed into the wave generators goes, it goes into the generated waves. This experiment isn't all that weird, physics students and even trigonometry students do similar tests (mostly mathematical ones for the trig students, obviously).

[sigurdV]

By "sinus" waves, I assume you mean Sine waves?

Yes!

Also, interference can be easily detected, as it usually directly interferes with whatever you're measuring. Also, I believe you're really talking about when waves counter-act each other and negate their waveforms, which is actually quite hard to do since there are so many other waves happening in any given environment and interference usually occurs. But I'll go with the idea that this is a controlled experiment and only two sine waves (or cosine, square, whatever) exist in this lab and they are cancelling each other out. Not only can the waves from creation to destruction be detected, but their cancellation can be detected, observed, and monitored. If they couldn't, then we'd have a very difficult time observing our universe through the electromagnetic spectrum (which uses sine or sine-like waves).

I accept your description of lab affairs... I never saw this experiment being performed in reality.

 

 

 

 

The premise is what's wrong. Non-existing things do not exist. To presuppose that two objects exist you cannot say they don't, it creates a logically fallacy. If you ask where the energy fed into the wave generators goes, it goes into the generated waves. This experiment isn't all that weird, physics students and even trigonometry students do similar tests (mostly mathematical ones for the trig students, obviously).

I think you miss my point! Roughly: Shall we believe the map or the territory? There are two existing objects, you say , but they cant be detected! IF I didnt happen to agree with you (in a certain sense) I would THEN claim you believe in GHOSTS!

 

Since the objects you claim to be there obviously ARE NOT THERE!

 

What I really claim is that you dont face the problem, that you try to explain away a contradiction by pretending its not there! HOW can an object that is supposed to exist just vanish into thin air? And no longer be detectable where you claim it to be?

There IS a contradiction here that must be taken care of! And since I believe you are a good representative of the rest of the world I will not wait for latecomers to just parrot your claim that there IS no contradiction... I will give what I think is a possible and probable explanation:

 

There has been attempts to adjust the concept of EXISTENCE ,Hao Wang tries introducing the term "subsistence" but I refuse tampering with the most basic concept there IS! (Existence subsists...ha ha!)

 

There is no choice then: SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH OUR CONCEPT OF "OBJECT".

There are Primary and Secondary qualities and I hereby deny that Objecthood is a primary quality! Objects has no separate Reality in themselves, they are an interference effect of two fields! (Like a borderline that really isnt there.) Objects can be said to both exist and not exist in the same time (in a certain sense):

 

Since they are a certain relation between fields (of some kind) they disappear if THE RELATION (or rather the interference) no longer exists between the fields. But the fields still exist! Its only their relation that has changed.(Their interference disappeared.) The fields recieve energy that should keep the object in existence but the relation isnt there so the fields just suck up the energy, but produce no object out of the recieved energy.

 

The Theory of Interference is yet not an object in existence (!)... more research (energy) is needed. It does indeed exist in a sense of the necessary fields... and there are several good models to explore in order to establish the proper foundation but I expect interference from all directions... :blink:

 

PS: http://scienceforums.com/topic/27330-an-experiment-with-clocks/

You can also check how I got banned in Physics Forums...

As Giordano Bruno noted: its dangerous to seek the truth B)

 

I cant help but being worried that banisment awaits around the corner even in here ... I really didnt mind the banishment from the Pysics Forum... Them guys in there carry more badges then brains: quite unlike ,say, CraigD or Doctor Dick. Two very different personalities sharing only Curiosity and Sportmanship.

 

This whole business of "trollhunting and banishing" is a sign of a PsychoSocial disorder affecting mostly AngloSachsic territory. Its an infection that needs to be cured. But Im at loss as to what a cure would consist in?

 

Maybe a diagnose from experienced specialists could do the trick? Cya in psychology :D

Edited April 24, 2013 by sigurdV

[cal]

I never saw this experiment being performed in reality.

Google is your friend.

 

 

There are two existing objects, you say , but they cant be detected! IF I didnt happen to agree with you (in a certain sense) I would THEN claim you believe in GHOSTS!

You miss my point, sir. I never said they couldn't be detected. You can very much detect waveforms in an environment, especially if you agree with the lab conditions. You can claim I believe in ghosts all you want, that doesn't change the fact that I don't. I can also objectively prove and provide the evidence showing that the waveforms do exist, whether or not you choose to accept reality after that point is your choice, but realize that if you don't accept reality, you are wrong.

 

 

Since the objects you claim to be there obviously ARE NOT THERE!

But they are... and the experimental evidence proves them to be.

 

 

What I really claim is that you dont face the problem, that you try to explain away a contradiction by pretending its not there! HOW can an object that is supposed to exist just vanish into thin air? And no longer be detectable where you claim it to be?

The waves are detectable where we claim them to be, that's how we know there are waves there, because we detected them there. If you're saying that the cancellation of the waves when they hit each other is them "vanishing into thin air" then you are wrong. Waveforms are essentially measures of energy, and the energy goes somewhere. I imagine it would go into heat if you have enough of these waves smashing into each other, which would then cause interference because of the random movement of particles, making less waves cancel each other, domino effect-style. The transfer of energy will always be detectable in a controlled environment.

 

 

There IS a contradiction here that must be taken care of! And since I believe you are a good representative of the rest of the world I will not wait for latecomers to just parrot your claim that there IS no contradiction... I will give what I think is a possible and probable explanation:

 

There has been attempts to adjust the concept of EXISTENCE ,Hao Wang tries introducing the term "subsistence" but I refuse tampering with the most basic concept there IS! (Existence subsists...ha ha!)

There is not contradiction, the waves are created because of the transfer of energy, when the wave stops that does not mean nothing of it exists anymore, the waves were just an expression of the energy they contained which means the energy was transferred somewhere else, the energy does not simply stop existing. Also, if you get into the philosophy of existence, the Closest Continuer Schema (CCS) takes care of your problem here. The CCS proves that the way I described the transfer of energy is a means for the existence of that original thing to persist.

 

 

There is no choice then: SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH OUR CONCEPT OF "OBJECT".

That's a false dichotomy, or is it false premise? Either way, you've created a logically fallacy, because there is a choice, which is to accept the universalized definitions I've given, that can be semantically self-actuated to be true and utilized in the physical world, or to deny reality and come up with a plethora of other reasonings, most of which hold no good standing in the scientific of philosophic communities.

 

I got to go to class, I'll respond to the rest later, sorry.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Snax

[sigurdV]

Hmm...very good argumenting there snax. Itll be interesting to see you continue!

 

It seems to me likely at this moment that you will convince me

that the experiment dont work in perfection in practise...

But I havent given up yet ;)

So when/if youre done, why not for fun, see how you argue contrafactually:

Supposing that the experiment is successfully executed.

 

Is there another solution than the one I try out?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Heres my other physical experiment:

 

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:03 PM

We have two stopwatches and we begin by starting them.

We put one on the table and the other in a centrifuge made of glass so we can observe both clocks simultaneously.

Now observe the clocks throughout the experiment. And now stop centrifuging the clock. Stop both clocks.

 

My first simple question is: For how long time have we been observing BOTH clocks?

(Suppose the stationary clock says for one hour and the spinning clock says fiftynine minutes.

1 Is it then so that we have observed BOTH clocks for both one hour and for fiftynine minutes? Is 60=59?

(The experiment seems to me to be the twin paradox with a difference:

The clocks can be observed simultaneously all the time...whether that makes any difference is one of my further questions.)

2 What speed and radius of the centrifuge will give the 59/60 result? (Already answered by Doctor Dick.)

3 Why and how is rotation shortening the rate of time of the rotating clock, where is "the missing minute"?

4 Show how to detect the orientation of the Earths rotational axis with respect to the lab

5 How much Earthly knowledge of the OUTSIDE of the lab is it possible to acquire from the INSIDE of it?

6 Explain what makes it possible to detect outside conditions without going outside?

7 I claim it is becaus of interference effects...do you agree?

8 How far away, given the best possible equipment, can we detect things?

9 The Moon? The sun? The solar system? The next star system? What is the limit for this telescope?

10 What about gravity waves and effects coming from an outside of the universe?

Just asking ;)

Edited April 25, 2013 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

Hi again Snax!

I thought it over and decided you lost your case ;)

I never demanded 100% efficiency, my argument concerns ONLY the part of the waves that actually disappears.

Where one expects there to be a part of a wave there is nothing!

But on the other hand it must be there since it consumes energy...so it is and it isnt!