Ok so the wave-function is the photon... but we can split the wave-function into two separate holding containers still can't we? And there would be a 50% chance that each container holds a photon. But a 100% chance that each container holds a wave-function. Right? (cause if you released the...
Update: Actually just thinking, it won't be a way to communicate FTL because the photon is only in one box isn't it? There are two waveforms but if you check one of the boxes you'll only find the photon there 50% of the time. Which means you can't use it for communication.
waveform /= photon.
OK cool, that make sense. Wasn't sure if they'd count as entangled. Except... we do have two waveforms right? That's how we get an interference pattern.
I know they're one original waveform but the pattern they make is indistinguishable from two waveforms. Ie The experiment gives us the...
Except shouldn't a photon which is split by the double split experiment, be entangled and have an interference pattern? Hence the double slit experiment?
I'm not really thinking this is a way to communicate FTL (though heh that's ok too^^) but mostly I'm just trying to understand what happens...
OK that makes sense, after all we only get one photon hitting the wall if there is no boxes so there is only one photon it's just that there has to be two waveform/photons for it to pass through both slits.
At least that's what I thought would happen. Except if it does work like that then...
Ok double slit experiment. Two slits send through one photon which passes through both slits due to wave/particle duality.
So really we have two probablity waveforms now don't we? One passing through each slit and creating a wave pattern from the start of each slit. THat's how we get an...
Then how can I ever move at all? Because why is my starting frame A "special".
Eg. Let's say i build a rocket ship on Earth and travel to alpha centauri going at .9c. Thing is, I use only specific atoms to build the rocket ship these atoms all come from big bang. And as the big bang has a...
Ah cheers JesseM that does help the gronking a bit. It really is all relative. (in regards to the mass thing) and i'll have a further perusal of your post again though a cursory look does seem to click over a few more gears so much appreciated one and all.
Ah yep, that makes sense, was thinking it's an exponential increase in mass requirements as speeds approach C which it is, but even accelerating in .10% of c lots you'll still get the same exponential increase in mass requirements due to the way velocities are added in relativity. Which all...
I mean accelerate the ship from say velocity of 0% of to 10% of c. Turning the engine off and thereby "locking in" a new inertial reference frame each time? (this is the bit i'd like some clarity on).
Ie does just turning the engine off and no longer accelerating cause a new a inertial...
OK actually another quick question if i may. Just in a bid to see if i do understand intertial frames. What makes an inertial frame?
Ie the above scenario is an inertial frame.. but wouldn't' simply turning off the engine of the spaceship amount to the same thing? Ie as soon as it stops...
Ahh awesome thanks muchly.
The way to add velocities in special relativity is the simple answer i was missing (now off to see if i can gronk how that works). Much appreciated.
and thanks about the how to visualise relativity without maths. Think visualisation makes the most sense as...
Ok I'm a physics layperson, who has a question about relativity which i was hopging someone could answer in a way that i could understand. Ie without using mathematics hopefully as i failed high school maths(well quit but heh). I did pass physics so I'm not completely unfamiliar with some of...