Archive for September, 2010

Question : Do you agree with my hypothesis?
The Faraday paradox was a once inexplicable aspect of the reaction between nitric acid and steel. Around 1830, the English scientist Michael Faraday found that diluted nitric acid would attack steel, but concentrated nitric acid would not. The attempt to explain this discovery led to advances in electrochemistry.The key to resolving the paradox is passivation. When the acid is concentrated enough, and because concentrated nitric acid is an oxidizing agent, the potential of the metal is raised to the point that a layer of metastable Fe3O4 forms on the surface and protects it from further corrosion, even though the pH is so low that stable Fe3O4 cannot exist. This explanation is supported by the observation that scratching the surface causes a burst of bubbles. Diluted nitric acid is not as strong an oxidizing agent and hence does not raise the potential of the metal to the extent that metastable Fe3O4 forms on the surface. In this case, the metal freely corrodes. The upward or downward acceleration of the elevator, as long as the net force is directed downward, will not change the equilibrium point of the hydrometer either. The force due to acceleration acts on the hydrometer exactly as it would on an equal mass of water or other liquid. The basic building block of Hardy’s thought experiment is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer for quantum particles. The interferometer is tuned so that particles entering in arm e − exit in arm c − :
If the amplitude for the particle in one arm, say w − , were to be obstructed by a second particle in w + that collides with it, only the v amplitude would reach the second beam splitter, and would split into arms c + and d + with equal amplitude. The detection of a particle in d + would thus indicate the presence of the obstructing particle without the latter being affected. For this reason, this scheme was named interaction-free measurement.
Hardy’s original thought experiment has two interferometers, one for electrons and one for positrons, arranged in such a way that their w arms intersect. If both the electron and the positron take arms w in their respective interferometers, they will annihilate with certainty to produce gamma radiation: . Therefore the presence of either particle in its w arm will affect the other’s interferometer output:
The situation can be analyzed in terms of two simultaneous interaction-free measurements: from the point of view of the interferometer on the left, a click at d + implies the presence of the obstructing electron in u − . Similarly, for the interferometer on the right, a click at d − implies the presence of the positron in u + . Indeed, every time a click is recordered at the order particle is found in . If we assume the particles are independent (described by local hidden variables), we conclude that they can never emerge simultaneously in d + and d − . This would imply that they were in u + and u − , which cannot occur because of the annihilation process.
A paradox then arises because sometimes the particles do emerge simultaneously ad d + and d − (with probability p=1/16). Quantum mechanically, the term arises, in fact, from the nonmaximally entangled nature of the state just before the final beam splitters. In a minor variant, both spaceships stop accelerating after a certain period of time previously agreed upon. The captain of each ship shuts off his engine after this time period has passed, as measured by an onboard clock. This allows before and after comparisons in suitable inertial reference frames in the sense of elementary special relativity. Note that both ships will have different acceleration programs if they are to accelerate identically in the rest frame, because of the relativity of simultaneity.
According to discussions by Dewan & Beran and also Bell, in the spaceship launcher’s reference system the distance between the ships will remain constant while the elastic limit of the string is length contracted, so that at a certain point in time the string should break.
Objections and counter-objections have been published to the above analysis. For example, Paul Nawrocki suggests that the string should not break,[3] while Edmond Dewan defends his original analysis from these objections in a reply.[4] Bell reported that he encountered much skepticism from “a distinguished experimentalist” when he presented the paradox. To attempt to resolve the dispute, an informal and non-systematic canvas was made of the CERN theory division. According to Bell, a “clear consensus” of the CERN theory division arrived at the answer that the string would not break. Bell goes on to add “Of course, many people who get the wrong answer at first get the right answer on further reflection”.[1] Later, Matsuda and Kinoshita[5] reported receiving much criticism after publishing an article on their independently rediscovered version of the paradox in a Japanese journal. Matsuda and Kinoshita do not cite specific papers, however, stating only that thes
metal detection system

Best answer:

Answer by chippy
sure