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 23:59 On Dec 14, 10:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes, I do.
From: Huang on 15 Dec 2009 07:49 > > There is (by definition) no such thing as a nonexistent length. So you're > > just talking nonsense. What Inertial is saying here is very good. He makes a good point. To advance his argument a little further....one could argue many ways. [1] All nonexistent things are congruent or indistinguishable because nonexistence is a singularity. So, to speak of nonexistent length is no different than speaking of nonexistent apples, oranges, or bananas. This would obviously be a problem if we were working with segments of length which were %100 nonexistent. For example, let A exist and let B be nonexistent, and compose A and B into a single length segment. If A = 0, then we are performing nonsense for all B. But also note that if B = 0 then we are performing orthodox mathematics for all A. The composition of A and B yields a different kind of of magnitude. It is not mathematics, and it is not nonsense either. It is a hybrid. And the very interesting thing is that this composition A and B can be explained or modelled using probability theory. "Every probabilistic problem can be restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." There are ways of rewriting probabilistic problems to yield this composition of A and B, but conservation is a critical component to this process. A nonexistent banana is no different than infinitely many nonexistent bananas. So, for B to make any sense at all it needs to be tamed, and conservation accomplishes this. Futher, when you really think about conservation it is very much like an operator, no different than addition or multiplication. But it is a trivial operator. A magnitude remains the same when it is conserved. Conservation is an operation which leaves a magnitude unchanged. If the ratio of A to B is conserved, then calculations become sensible and the results you will obtain are identical to performing standard probability theory. So - why even do this ? Conjectural models are much simpler and easier to comprehend than their probabilistic counterparts. You can also bend space without going through all of the rigors of advanced analysis, playing with metrics, etc. So, simplicity. Simplicity is why it makes sense, because when your models are simple it makes it much easier to understand what you are modelling and what's going on. Modern physics is getting itself bogged down in a philosophical tar pit of crazy philosophical complexity, an infinite number of different "effects" which are all treated as distinct species such as Casimir, etc,..........it must be realized that there is a unified whole, that out current model may not be unified but nature certainly is..........inventing or discovering new "effects" only adds to the complexity which is already unwieldy.
From: Inertial on 15 Dec 2009 07:55 "Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fab3e259-e9c2-4253-b680-11e620e61cf7(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > >> > There is (by definition) no such thing as a nonexistent length. So >> > you're >> > just talking nonsense. > > > > What Inertial is saying here is very good. He makes a good point. To > advance his argument a little further....one could argue many ways. > > [1] All nonexistent things are congruent or indistinguishable because > nonexistence is a singularity. So, to speak of nonexistent length is > no different than speaking of nonexistent apples, oranges, or bananas. Indeed > This would obviously be a problem if we were working with segments of > length which were %100 nonexistent. There is no such thing > For example, let A exist and let B > be nonexistent, and compose A and B into a single length segment. If you compose A with something that doesn't exist, you just have A > If A > = 0, then we are performing nonsense for all B. But also note that if > B = 0 then we are performing orthodox mathematics for all A. No .. you are simply performing orthodox mathematics on A, as there is no B with which to compose A. > The composition of A and B yields a different kind of of magnitude. No .. it yields A. You haven't thought this through very well > It > is not mathematics, and it is not nonsense either. It is a hybrid. Wrong. Its still just mathematics, because A is unchanged. > And > the very interesting thing is that this composition A and B can be > explained or modelled using probability theory. You don't need any particular theory .. composing A with B gives A, and whatever theory handles A still handles A, because you have done nothing to it [snip more of the same nonsense]
From: glird on 15 Dec 2009 09:49 On Dec 15, 7:49 am, Huang wrote: ><<< There is (by definition) no such thing as a nonexistent length. So you're just talking nonsense. >>> > >< What Inertial is saying here is very good. He makes a good point. To advance his argument a little further....one could argue many ways. [1] All nonexistent things are congruent or indistinguishable because nonexistence is a singularity {is a point, which has 0 volume thus is purely imaginary}. So, to speak of nonexistent length is no different than speaking of nonexistent apples, oranges, or bananas. This would obviously be a problem if we were working with segments of length which were %100 nonexistent. For example, let A exist and let B be nonexistent {= 0}, and compose A and B into a single length segment. If A = 0, then we are performing nonsense for all B. But also note that if B = 0 then we are performing orthodox mathematics for all A. > If B doesn't exist, then why is A + B = 0 + 0 = 0 "nonsense" while A + B = 4 + 0 = 4 is ok? >< The composition of A and B yields a different kind of of magnitude. It is not mathematics, and it is not [{ ? }] nonsense either. It is a hybrid. And the very interesting thing is that this composition A and B can be explained or modelled using probability theory. > There is a HUGE difference between the "probability" that B has a value of zero and the fact that "B doesn't exist". Indeed, if B doesn't exist then the probability that the value of B is zero is 100%. ><If the ratio of A to B is conserved, then calculations become sensible and the results you will obtain are identical to performing standard probability theory.> If B doesn't exist, then B = 0. What is the "ratio of A to B" if A = 1 or 2 or infinity or zero? ><So - why even do this? > No reason at all. glird Modern physics > is getting itself bogged down in a philosophical tar pit of crazy > philosophical complexity ... it must be realized that there is a unified whole, that out current model may not be unified but nature certainly is...........inventing or discovering new "effects" only adds to the complexity which is already unwieldy.
From: Huang on 15 Dec 2009 21:31
On Dec 15, 8:49 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 7:49 am, Huang wrote:><<< There is (by definition) no such thing as a nonexistent length. So you're just talking nonsense. >>> > > >< What Inertial is saying here is very good. He makes a good point. To advance his argument a little further....one could argue many ways. > > [1] All nonexistent things are congruent or indistinguishable because > nonexistence is a singularity {is a point, which has 0 volume thus is > purely imaginary}. So, to speak of nonexistent length is no different > than speaking of nonexistent apples, oranges, or bananas. > This would obviously be a problem if we were working with segments of > length which were %100 nonexistent. For example, let A exist and let B > be nonexistent {= 0}, and compose A and B into a single length > segment. If A = 0, then we are performing nonsense for all B. But also > note that if B = 0 then we are performing orthodox mathematics for all > A. > > > If B doesn't exist, then why is > A + B = 0 + 0 = 0 "nonsense" while > A + B = 4 + 0 = 4 is ok? Really an excellent question and Im quite surprised that someone would even ask. Clearly the case where A=0 and B is nonzero is nonsense for all B. The case where B=0 is just standard mathematics for all A. The case where A and B are both zero is a special case. > >< The composition of A and B yields a different kind of of magnitude. It is not mathematics, and it is not [{ ? }] nonsense either. It is a hybrid. And the very interesting thing is that this composition A and B can be explained or modelled using probability theory. > > > There is a HUGE difference between the "probability" that B has a > value of zero and the fact that "B doesn't exist". Indeed, if B > doesn't exist then the probability that the value of B is zero is > 100%. Here's the deal. Let A = 75 and let B = 25. Compose A and B into a single magnitude (or length). The "conjectured" length is 100. The "expected" length is 75. And this new conjectured length has the same properties as an existent segment C of length 100 which has a "probability of existing = 3/4". So maybe you can explain why the numbers work so nicely. > ><If the ratio of A to B is conserved, then calculations become sensible and the results you will obtain are identical to performing standard probability theory.> > > If B doesn't exist, then B = 0. What is the "ratio of A to B" if A = > 1 or 2 or infinity or zero? There are many B which dont exist and they are all congruent because nonexistence is singular. When you MIX the existent with the nonexistent then the resulting magnitude is not purely noexistent, and it does not behave the same way as a purely noexistent thing. It behaves differently. It is not neccesarily singular. Part of it exists. It is wrong to say that " If B doesn't exist, then B = 0." . This is not correct. B can be 1,2,3, 10, 1x10^6, and it is only nonexistent if you declare it to be so. B nonexistent does not imply that B=0. The ratio of A to B is the existential potential, which is conserved. Conservation forces this thing to work properly, and it does. > ><So - why even do this? > > > No reason at all. Many reasons, all of them valid. > glird > > Modern physics > > > > > is getting itself bogged down in a philosophical tar pit of crazy > > philosophical complexity ... it must be realized that there is a unified whole, that out current model may not be unified but nature certainly is...........inventing or discovering new "effects" only adds to the complexity which is already unwieldy.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |