Aether Displacement Rebuttal
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: CERN is your potential killer. I’ll send my last 100 baxes to that CERN worker, who will destroy the LHC.
Next: Confirm or deny
From: Huang on 14 Dec 2009 09:45 On Dec 14, 7:18 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Dec 13, 5:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The answer to this problem is that space is neither continuous nor > > discrete, but indeterminately either one or the other. It is > > indeterminate whether it is continuous or discrete. > > It's codependent, covariant. It is indeterminately discrete / continuous. That is why it can return results as if it were either one or the other - it only depends on the question you ask of it. > > How can that be ? Consider 2 lengths A and B. A is existent, B is > > nonexistent. > > Let A be eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee > > Let B be nnnnnnnnnn > > > If you compose them into a single length, there is no way to know > > where the nnnnnnnnnn is located. It's position is indeterminate. You > > It is position is indeterminate? But length is in time, not room. Silly Aut. You can partion A and B and combine them any way you like. There are uncountably infinitely many different ways to do this. They are all the same thing because B is nonexistent. The reason why it MAKES SENSE is because we imposing CONSERVATION either as an axiom, or as a trivial operator. > > can rearrange things so that the composition of A and B is either > > continuous or discrete, and because nnnnnnnnnn is nonexistent the > > distinction between continuity and discreteness becomes trivial. > > Both are neither continvose. By existent and nonexistent, you mean > real and virtval. > [snip blather] > > -Aut No, I mean physically existent, and physically nonexistent. And when did you start spelling continuous as continvose ?
From: glird on 14 Dec 2009 13:33 On Dec 13, 8:21 pm, Huang wrote: < mpc755 tried to explain WP Duality in terms of aether waves, but cannot explain what happens to the wave when we ask "which way" and interference patterns diasppear. Where did the wave go? The answer to this problem is that space is neither continuous nor discrete, but indeterminately either one or the other. It is indeterminate whether it is continuous or discrete. How can that be? Consider 2 lengths A and B. A is existent, B is nonexistent. Let A be eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Let B be nnnnnnnnnn {= "nonexistant" = 0}. If you compose them into a single length, there is no way to know where the n{=0}nnnnn is located. It's position is indeterminate {= nonexistant}. You can rearrange things so that the composition of A and {B = 0} is either continuous or discrete, and because nnnnn = 0 is nonexistent the distinction between continuity and discreteness becomes {meaninglessly} trivial. We must assume that particles are composed of bent space {= nothing} - just like gravity in GR. Then, it becomes very obvious why the W {ave} P{article} Duality is perfectly sensXibXless}. If one asks "which way" in a given context, then nXatXureX {Physics} returns an answer in the format that you had requested - it is discretized. If you dont ask which way, then sxpaxcex {nothingness} will be forced {by WHAT?} to behave as if continuous and you will observe XiXnterXferXenceX patterns. But the only way to make LENGTH behave that way is by composing the existent with the nonexistent. Length cannot be made to behave that way by any other means (that I am aware of). > The only thing that can change the length of a material body is a change in pressure. If that change is nonexistent - thus equal to 0 - the length won't change. If the change is positive the length will be compressed, thus will become shorter. If the change is negative, ontropy will cause the length to expand until the pressure gradient is cancelled by that expansion into the surrounding matter, which thereby increases in density thus raises its counter-pressure until grad p = o. glird
From: PD on 14 Dec 2009 13:35 On Dec 13, 8:02 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 13, 5:48 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 13, 7:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 13, 8:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > "Aether Displacement Rebuttal" > > > > > mpc755 tried to explain WP Duality in terms of aether waves, but > > > > cannot explain what happens to the wave when we ask "which way" and > > > > interference patterns diasppear. Where did the wave go ? > > > > I have been explaining how the interference pattern disappears. > > > > Asking 'which way' is the same thing as physically detecting the > > > particle. In the boat in a double slit experiment, in order to detect > > > the boat, buoys are placed at the exits to the slits. The boats bow > > > wave is its displacement wave in the water. The bow wave enters and > > > exits both slits. The buoys destroy the coherence of the bow waves as > > > they exit the slits (decoherence). The bow waves are turned into chop.. > > > Since the coherence of the bow waves have been destroyed and turned > > > into chop, they do not create interference and do not alter the > > > direction the boat travels. > > > > This is what is occurring to the displacement wave the C-60 molecule > > > creates in the substance of space. Detecting the C-60 molecule > > > destroys the coherence (decoherence) of the displacement wave (it is > > > turned into 'chop') and the direction the C-60 molecules travels is > > > not altered. > > > You need to study the experiment again. They can detect "which way" > > without altering the particle.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Everybody here is speculating on phenomeonon as if they know and it is > not true. > > Mitch Raemsch Mitch, more has been done in experiment than you are aware of.
From: Huang on 14 Dec 2009 22:42 On Dec 14, 12:33 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 13, 8:21 pm, Huang wrote: > < mpc755 tried to explain WP Duality in terms of aether waves, but > cannot explain what happens to the wave when we ask "which way" and > interference patterns diasppear. Where did the wave go? > The answer to this problem is that space is neither continuous nor > discrete, but indeterminately either one or the other. It is > indeterminate whether it is continuous or discrete. > How can that be? Consider 2 lengths A and B. A is existent, B is > nonexistent. > Let A be eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee > Let B be nnnnnnnnnn {= "nonexistant" = 0}. > If you compose them into a single length, there is no way to know > where the n{=0}nnnnn is located. It's position is indeterminate {= > nonexistant}. You can rearrange things so that the composition of A > and {B = 0} is either continuous or discrete, and because nnnnn = 0 is > nonexistent the distinction between continuity and discreteness > becomes {meaninglessly} trivial. > We must assume that particles are composed of bent space {= nothing} > - just like gravity in GR. Then, it becomes very obvious why the W > {ave} P{article} Duality is perfectly sensXibXless}. > If one asks "which way" in a given context, then nXatXureX {Physics} > returns an answer in the format that you had requested - it is > discretized. If you dont ask which way, then sxpaxcex {nothingness} > will be forced {by WHAT?} to behave as if continuous and you will > observe XiXnterXferXenceX patterns. > But the only way to make LENGTH behave that way is by composing the > existent with the nonexistent. Length cannot be made to behave that > way by any other means (that I am aware of). > > > The only thing that can change the length of a material body is a > change in pressure. If that change is nonexistent - thus equal to 0 - > the length won't change. If the change is positive the length will be > compressed, thus will become shorter. If the change is negative, > ontropy will cause the length to expand until the pressure gradient is > cancelled by that expansion into the surrounding matter, which thereby > increases in density thus raises its counter-pressure until grad p = > o. > > glird When we measure length we regard it as a "given". We typically dont regard it as an "expected value". My claim is that these views are equivalent. If we mix existent length with nonexistent length, and we further implement conservation so that calculations are prevented from becoming ridiculous, then you have a new kind of length which is a mixture of the existent and the nonexistent. This length, this magnitude....must be regarded as a "conjectured magnitude". When we observe it by measuring or otherwise, we cannot possibly hope to observe the nonexistent part because it simply does not exist. So, this "conjectured magnitude" has an expected value which is simply the magnitude of the existent part. That is the part which is observed, the part which exists. Now that you have this "conjectured magnitude", and you should be able to see that it is neither continuous nor discrete, it is easy to see why WP Duality makes perfect sense. If particles are composed of bent space, then their behaviour is exactly what one would anticipate. WP Duality is not an experiment on particles, but tiny distortions of spacetime. It is a chemistry/geometry experiment on tiny chunks of bent space. All of these considerations regarding length must also apply to time. If you look at Paulus' (TAMU) Femtosecond Interference experiments, it seems like a very reasonable approach toward modelling this kind of interference. Paulus described "slits in time", but I think that it is equally reasonable to consider that time has some inherently probabilistic properties - just like length described above. It would be interesting to try to see if Paulus' experiments could be adapted show that having "which way" information has the same effects in the time domain, I know that he touched on this in his paper but I wonder how far one could push it.
From: mpc755 on 14 Dec 2009 23:50
On Dec 13, 11:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 13, 11:23 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 13, 10:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 13, 8:48 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 13, 7:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 13, 8:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Aether Displacement Rebuttal" > > > > > > > mpc755 tried to explain WP Duality in terms of aether waves, but > > > > > > cannot explain what happens to the wave when we ask "which way" and > > > > > > interference patterns diasppear. Where did the wave go ? > > > > > > I have been explaining how the interference pattern disappears. > > > > > > Asking 'which way' is the same thing as physically detecting the > > > > > particle. In the boat in a double slit experiment, in order to detect > > > > > the boat, buoys are placed at the exits to the slits. The boats bow > > > > > wave is its displacement wave in the water. The bow wave enters and > > > > > exits both slits. The buoys destroy the coherence of the bow waves as > > > > > they exit the slits (decoherence). The bow waves are turned into chop. > > > > > Since the coherence of the bow waves have been destroyed and turned > > > > > into chop, they do not create interference and do not alter the > > > > > direction the boat travels. > > > > > > This is what is occurring to the displacement wave the C-60 molecule > > > > > creates in the substance of space. Detecting the C-60 molecule > > > > > destroys the coherence (decoherence) of the displacement wave (it is > > > > > turned into 'chop') and the direction the C-60 molecules travels is > > > > > not altered. > > > > > You need to study the experiment again. They can detect "which way" > > > > without altering the particle. > > > > It depends upon what is meant by 'altering' the particle. The act of > > > detection is causing the displacement wave to be turned into chop. > > > They are mistaking turning the displacement wave into chop as > > > 'collapsing the wave function associated with the particle'. What they > > > are mistaking for 'collapsing the wave function' is really the > > > destruction of the coherence (decoherence) of the physical waves in > > > the aether. The displacement waves in the substance of space are > > > turned into chop and this allows the C-60 molecule to continue on in > > > its path. If 'which way' is not detected, then the displacement waves > > > exit the slits, create interference, and alter the direction the C-60 > > > molecule travels as it exits a slit. If you place buoys at the exits > > > to the slits and turn the boat's bow wave into chop, the boat will > > > continue on and be detected where you would expect it to if there were > > > only a single slit the boat and its bow wave had traveled through. > > > This could be considered as not altering the boat because turning the > > > bow wave into chop allows the boat to continue along the path it was > > > traveling. If you do not detect 'which way' (do not place buoys at the > > > exits to the slits) then the bow wave exits both slits and creates > > > interference and it is this interference which alters the direction > > > the boat travels.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Does that really answer the original question ? > > > How does detecting "which way" cause the wave behaviour to simply go > > away ??? > > The moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of > space directly in front of the path it is traveling. The particle > cannot be detected without detecting the displacement wave. Detecting > 'which way' means detecting the particle. Detecting the particle means > detecting the displacement wave. > > Detecting 'which way' turns the displacement wave into chop. > > Detecting 'which way' destroys the displacement wave. Huang: Do you understand how detecting 'which way' causes the wave behaviors to simply go away? |