Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??
Next: Why Pendulum as a clock do not shows, what General Theory of Relativity predicts?
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 10:26 On Dec 7, 9:57 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 9:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 7:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 11:20 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 6, 9:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 6, 9:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, > > > > > > > > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously > > > > > > > > without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in > > > > > > > > momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed > > > > > > > > behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. > > > > > > > It requires no energy because no chemical bonds are broken, nor are > > > > > > > they reformed after passing through the slit. It is a quantum > > > > > > > phenomena and is trivial. > > > > > > > Saying it is a 'quantum phenomena' is saying its magic. > > > > > > > > NON-TRIVIAL reactions may require or release energy - trivial ones DO > > > > > > > NOT. But in any case, there is no chemical reaction. > > > > > > > The molecule may be regarded as a wave. It may be regarded as a > > > > > > > particle. It is indeterminate whether it is one or the other, until > > > > > > > you pose a question in such a way that it FORCES THE ANSWER to be > > > > > > > formatted as one or the other. > > > > > > > The molecule is not a wave. The molecule is a particle, always. > > > > > > That is where you are not just wrong, you are in fact very wrong. > > > > > > > > it is all very obvious. > > > > > > > If I tell you to "give me a random number", you dont have any idea > > > > > > > whether I want discrete or continuous output. My question is > > > > > > > ambiguous. If I change the question "give me a random integer" or > > > > > > > "give me a random real", then I have modified the question > > > > > > > signifigantly. That is what wave particle duality is all about. It is > > > > > > > DIRT SIMPLE. > > > > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > > > > > > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > > > > > > does water exist? > > > > > > Completely different situation. I would call this the fallacy of bad > > > > > analogies. > > > > > Incorrect. Exactly the same situation. > > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule and the > > > > C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern on the screen, is the > > > > C-60 molecule a wave or does aether exist? > > > > > Detectors will, or won't, be placed at the exits to the slits while > > > > the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If detectors are placed at the > > > > exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule exits, the > > > > C-60 molecule will always be detected exiting a single slit. If > > > > detectors are removed at the last instant before the C-60 molecule > > > > exits the slits, interference occurs. > > > > > What is your explanation to the above? Are you one of those who > > > > chooses to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits > > > > depending upon what is going to occur in the future? In Aether > > > > Displacement, the C-60 molecule is always a particle and it always > > > > enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates > > > > in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > > > > > > > A sentence like "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, > > > > > > which has expected length 10" is nonsense. Same for one meter of > > > > > > length which does not exist. This is all due to the nonsense required > > > > > > in QM. QM requires all of this nonsense because it doesn't understand ... > > > > > > The sentence "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, > > > > > which has expected length 10" is perfectly, and thoroughly sensible. > > > > > The only thing it suffers from is teh fact that it is inherently > > > > > trivial, but as it turns out triviality is not such an evil thing and > > > > > the apporach is both sensible and indeed useful. > > > > > > What I would like to see is hot you can make mathematical sense of > > > > > aether, after Michaelson-Morely completely blew that out of the water, > > > > > (perhaps if only temporariliy but nevertheless). > > > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of an entrained aether. > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > > > > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > > > > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > > The connectedness between matter and the aether is what causes the > > > > aether to be entrained by the matter which is the Earth. The > > > > connectedness and the associated entrainment is not the reason for > > > > gravity. The aether not being at rest when displaced is the reason for > > > > gravity. > > > > > Drill a million tiny holes into a bowling ball and put the bowling > > > > ball into a tank of water and spin the bowling ball. The water becomes > > > > entrained by the bowling ball.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Hmmmm. Interesting. > > > > Well, here's what I know about gravity. It is a deformation of space, > > > a deformation of dimension. There are such things as gravity waves (at > > > least we're looking for them) and it's pretty obvious that they must > > > exist at least in principle. This proves that dimension is a medium of > > > wave propagation - at least in the case of gravity. > > > > Where people have failed to extend that view is in areas such as QM. > > > But clearly - it is obvious to me that this view holds here as well. > > > Dimansion is a medium of wave propagation on the quantum scale and the > > > only difficulty is modelling it. Turns out it is not so difficult, but > > > it is quite strange, trivial, paradoxical, and wierd. But it is what > > > it is. > > > 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. > > > A gravity wave is an aether wave. > > > It doesn't matter if we are discussing the Earth or a C-60 molecule, > > aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dimension is math not nature ? Really ? Have you ever seen a ruler or > a clock ? What do you suppose that these things measure ? > > Length is dimension. Time is dimension. These things are a a medium of > wave propagation in GR, and I would also say that they are a medium of > wave propagation in QM. > Length and time measure stuff. Dimension is not a medium. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein "according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." > You dont need the idea of aether really, dimension works just fine and > does the same thing. You should change the name of your model to > "dimension displacement theory" and then I would agree with you > completely - you just need to model it mathematically. This is > accomplished very easily as discussed above. > > gotta go do some things ....talk later Yes, it needs to be modeled mathematically and if you could do that, that would be huge! Of course, anything you model you can name whatever you want, but I would prefer it to be called Aether Displacement. Aether Displacement conveys it is the 'stuff of space' which is being displaced. Spacial Displacement and Spatial Displacement also convey it is space which is being displaced, but they are not as physically descriptive as Aether Displacement because they convey it is space itself which is displaced and not the 'stuff of space'. Another reason Aether Displacement is better is because matter is compressed aether. Matter is compressed dimension doesn't cut it. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' By A. EINSTEIN http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 10:38 On Dec 7, 9:57 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 9:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 7:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 11:20 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 6, 9:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 6, 9:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, > > > > > > > > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously > > > > > > > > without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in > > > > > > > > momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed > > > > > > > > behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. > > > > > > > It requires no energy because no chemical bonds are broken, nor are > > > > > > > they reformed after passing through the slit. It is a quantum > > > > > > > phenomena and is trivial. > > > > > > > Saying it is a 'quantum phenomena' is saying its magic. > > > > > > > > NON-TRIVIAL reactions may require or release energy - trivial ones DO > > > > > > > NOT. But in any case, there is no chemical reaction. > > > > > > > The molecule may be regarded as a wave. It may be regarded as a > > > > > > > particle. It is indeterminate whether it is one or the other, until > > > > > > > you pose a question in such a way that it FORCES THE ANSWER to be > > > > > > > formatted as one or the other. > > > > > > > The molecule is not a wave. The molecule is a particle, always. > > > > > > That is where you are not just wrong, you are in fact very wrong. > > > > > > > > it is all very obvious. > > > > > > > If I tell you to "give me a random number", you dont have any idea > > > > > > > whether I want discrete or continuous output. My question is > > > > > > > ambiguous. If I change the question "give me a random integer" or > > > > > > > "give me a random real", then I have modified the question > > > > > > > signifigantly. That is what wave particle duality is all about. It is > > > > > > > DIRT SIMPLE. > > > > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > > > > > > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > > > > > > does water exist? > > > > > > Completely different situation. I would call this the fallacy of bad > > > > > analogies. > > > > > Incorrect. Exactly the same situation. > > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule and the > > > > C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern on the screen, is the > > > > C-60 molecule a wave or does aether exist? > > > > > Detectors will, or won't, be placed at the exits to the slits while > > > > the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If detectors are placed at the > > > > exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule exits, the > > > > C-60 molecule will always be detected exiting a single slit. If > > > > detectors are removed at the last instant before the C-60 molecule > > > > exits the slits, interference occurs. > > > > > What is your explanation to the above? Are you one of those who > > > > chooses to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits > > > > depending upon what is going to occur in the future? In Aether > > > > Displacement, the C-60 molecule is always a particle and it always > > > > enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates > > > > in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > > > > > > > A sentence like "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, > > > > > > which has expected length 10" is nonsense. Same for one meter of > > > > > > length which does not exist. This is all due to the nonsense required > > > > > > in QM. QM requires all of this nonsense because it doesn't understand ... > > > > > > The sentence "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, > > > > > which has expected length 10" is perfectly, and thoroughly sensible. > > > > > The only thing it suffers from is teh fact that it is inherently > > > > > trivial, but as it turns out triviality is not such an evil thing and > > > > > the apporach is both sensible and indeed useful. > > > > > > What I would like to see is hot you can make mathematical sense of > > > > > aether, after Michaelson-Morely completely blew that out of the water, > > > > > (perhaps if only temporariliy but nevertheless). > > > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of an entrained aether. > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > > > > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > > > > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > > The connectedness between matter and the aether is what causes the > > > > aether to be entrained by the matter which is the Earth. The > > > > connectedness and the associated entrainment is not the reason for > > > > gravity. The aether not being at rest when displaced is the reason for > > > > gravity. > > > > > Drill a million tiny holes into a bowling ball and put the bowling > > > > ball into a tank of water and spin the bowling ball. The water becomes > > > > entrained by the bowling ball.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Hmmmm. Interesting. > > > > Well, here's what I know about gravity. It is a deformation of space, > > > a deformation of dimension. There are such things as gravity waves (at > > > least we're looking for them) and it's pretty obvious that they must > > > exist at least in principle. This proves that dimension is a medium of > > > wave propagation - at least in the case of gravity. > > > > Where people have failed to extend that view is in areas such as QM. > > > But clearly - it is obvious to me that this view holds here as well. > > > Dimansion is a medium of wave propagation on the quantum scale and the > > > only difficulty is modelling it. Turns out it is not so difficult, but > > > it is quite strange, trivial, paradoxical, and wierd. But it is what > > > it is. > > > 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. > > > A gravity wave is an aether wave. > > > It doesn't matter if we are discussing the Earth or a C-60 molecule, > > aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dimension is math not nature ? Really ? Have you ever seen a ruler or > a clock ? What do you suppose that these things measure ? > > Length is dimension. Time is dimension. These things are a a medium of > wave propagation in GR, and I would also say that they are a medium of > wave propagation in QM. > Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein "according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." > You dont need the idea of aether really, dimension works just fine and > does the same thing. You should change the name of your model to > "dimension displacement theory" and then I would agree with you > completely - you just need to model it mathematically. This is > accomplished very easily as discussed above. > > gotta go do some things ....talk later Yes, it needs to be modeled mathematically and if you could do that, that would be huge! Of course, anything you model you can name whatever you want, but I would prefer it to be called Aether Displacement. Aether Displacement conveys it is the 'stuff of space' which is being displaced. Spacial Displacement and Spatial Displacement also convey it is space which is being displaced, but they are not as physically descriptive as Aether Displacement because they convey it is space itself which is displaced and not the 'stuff of space'. In Aether Displacement, matter is compressed aether. It is the 'stuff of space' which is compressed as matter. Matter displaces the 'stuff of space'. Compressed dimension displacing dimension doesn't work. Matter is compressed dimension conveys more of a pull. Not to say that won't be considered to be more physically correct, but it is a different concept than Aether Displacement. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' By A. EINSTEIN http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
From: glird on 7 Dec 2009 16:50 In what follows, I will place numbers like this {#} to indicate things I will comment on. On Dec 6, 3:38 pm, Huang wrote: > On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 wrote: .... ... ... ... Huang: Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously {1} without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. {2} C60 is neither wave nor particle. {3} It is indeterminate whether it is one or the other. {4} If you ASK "which way" then nature will tell you, simply because you modified the very nature of the experiment by asking such a question in the first place. It behaves like a particle {3} because that is the FORMAT of the output required by the question "which way?" If you do NOT ask which way, then it behaves like a wave. The experiments and the evidence has been repeated thousands of times in labs all over the world. C60 is not a wave, and is not a particle. It is indeterminately either one or the other. {5} And if you ask a certain way, you will get a corresponding output. The only way to model this sensibly is by using a composition of existent magnitudes and nonexistent magnitudes. THAT makes sense where nothing else can. {6}> 1. How can one molecule be in two different places at the same instant? 2. If (as Einstein did) we substitute "empty space" for "aether", would you still deny that a moving particle creates a wave system? 3. Define "particle"!! 4. Until you define "particle" that is a meaningless sentence. 5. The word "indeterminately" is superfluous and may be misleading. 6. A magnitude is a number. An "existing magnitude" is obtained by measuring a quantity of something. Although "nonexistent magnitudes" don't exist :) we could interpret this as referring to an as yet unmeasured quantity. However, until we know what has the given quantity -- measured or not -- THAT is mpc: Nonsense. The particle is on a deterministic path. The C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether. It is no different than a boat in the water passing through one of multiple slits. {1} The waves and boat move at almost the same speed but light does not etc. The bow wave the boat creates in the water enters and exits the slits ahead of the boat. The waves that exit the slits the boat does not travel through will pass out ahead of the path the boat is traveling and create interference with all of the waves that are exiting all of the slits ahead of the boat. This interference will alter the direction the boat travels. {2} If you place buoys at the exits to all of the slits and the buoys turn the bow wave into chop and interference does not occur and the direction the boat travels is not altered, do you say the buoys represent ASKING 'which way' so the boat behaved like a particle? If you do not place any buoys at the exits to the slits and the bow wave exiting all of the slits creates interference and alters the direction the boat travels, do you say since there being no buoys represents not ASKING 'which way' so the boat behaves like a wave? Of course not, you realize the boat is creating a bow wave in the water. There is a boat and a wave. The double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules is {similar to} a boat in the water. The C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether. There is a C-60 molecule and a wave > 1. A wave caused by a particle moving in a vacuum travels enormously faster than the particle, but a bow wave travels at almost the same speed as a boat. 2. Didn't they wait awhile before sending another molecule through a slit? If so, then the interference patterns would have disappeared before "the boats" exited either slip. Huang: ... Consider two magnitudes a and b, a exists and has magnitude 10, b does not exist and has magnitude 1. {1} Now compose these magnitudes. You will notice a couple of things right away: [1] It is indeterminate {"indeterminate" is entirely different from "not determined", which means "not specified"} whether the combined magnitude is continuous or discrete. [2] It is indeterminate whether you multiplied or added these things a and b. [3] This situation is exactly analogous to a probabilistic problem from orthodox mathematics, just worded differently. {SO differently worded as to be totally unrelated.} [4] Provides a mechanism for modeling things like wave-particle duality. {2} [5] Provides a mechanism for modeling dark matter, gravity, and all kinds of things. {2} [6] Provides a way to say that determinacy is equivalent to indeterminacy. {3} [7] Explains the fundamental essence of mathematics as a kind of absolute truth, Nonexistence is absolute falsehood and is singular, and in the middle you have conjecture. Truth, falsehood, and conjecture in the middle. It all fits very nicely. [8] I could go on, and on, and on.... Look at it this way. I ask you to get a random quantity of rope from a bag, you cannot see inside the nag. You don't know if the pieces in the bag are discrete chunks, or a continuous spool. Now let it be indeterminate {unknown}whether the rope is continuous or discrete. If I ASK how may pieces, then your answer MUST be discrete output and the rope behaved discretely. {4} If I DO NOT ask how many pieces, then the output is forced to be continuous by default and you MUST produce a continuous random chunk of rope and the rope must behave as if continuous. {5} Wave particle duality is no different. Quit beating yourself up - the problem is solved. {6}> 1. Clarification: b has an unmeasured magnitude of 1. 2. Please show us the mechanism. 3. Saying that "determinacy is equivalent to indeterminacy" -- which you just did -- doesn't make it true. 4. Why "MUST" my reply behave as you say it must? 5. In what way must a "chunk of rope" that is 1 foot long behave the same as a continuous rope that is 100 feet long? 6. Until you define your terms, nothing is solved. In my terms, a particle is a material body. and a wave is a density- pressure gradient moving through a material whether or not that material is a particle. Although a particle does have a density-gradient pattern, it does not have a pressure gradient as part of its construction. Therefore, a wave CAN traverse a particle and vice versa even though they are entirely different things. mpc: A double slit experiment is performed with a boat. All you know from the experiment is where the boat is launched from and when there are buoys placed at the exits to the slits the boat behaves the same as it does in a single slit experiment and when there aren't buoys at the exits to the slits and you perform the experiment over and over again, the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore. {1} You are adamant that all there is in the experiment is a boat, the slits, and the shore. You are unwilling or unable to understand water exists and the moving boat is creating a bow wave in the water. You conclude when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits you ASK 'which way' and the boat is a particle. You conclude when detectors are not placed at the exits to the slits you do not ASK 'which way' and the boat is a wave. Choosing to believe water does not exist doesn't make your conclusions any less incorrect. Wave particle duality: A moving body creates an aether wave. 1. Yes, you know there IS an interference pattern on the shore, but HOW do you know that the boat, rather than some other mechanism, "creates" it? Huang: You are talking about aether waves, you do not need the concept of aether. You already have dimension {1} and the concept of dimension works just fine for GR or anything else. {1b} I understand why people use the word aether, but it is not necessary. Dimension is a medium of wave propagation. I agree completely with what you are saying. But you don't need this aether stuff, all you need is dimension. Dimension is a medium of wave propagation. {2} This view is highly amenable to formal modeling but you would need to compose existent magnitudes with nonexistent magnitudes. If you do that, then YES dimension becomes a medium of wave propagation and physics would actually be unified. {3} In many ways I DO agree with what you are saying, but you must realize that the only way to model it is by composing existent magnitudes with nonexistent magnitudes. Most people don't want to buy into that idea, regardless of how well it works. There is a cultural reluctance to these ideas which is completely based on human bias. > 1. A "dimension" is an aspect of the physical world that we choose to measure. As such, it is an invention of the human mind and doesn't otherwise exist. 1b. Although it does work fine for GR, it doesn't even define what the chosen aspects physically ARE, other than as names per category of the things we chose to measure. 2. No dimension undergoes and propagates a wave. 3. If you summarize (in equations) the quantities obtained by measuring who-knows-what with the numerical quantities nobody ever measured, then YES Physics would be satisfied even though no one knew what the equations represent. mpc: My interpretation of modeling is mathematics. Mathematics is the judge and jury as to the validity of a theory. But, mathematics is not nature. I have not heard of magnitudes before but my guess as to what you are implying is the 'magnitude' that something is a wave vs. the 'magnitude' something is a particle. But I disagree completely with a C-60 molecule being a wave at any magnitude. {1} Now, if you want to re-interpret magnitude to include aether, then you might have something. 'Dimension' is a mathematical construct, not nature. The aether is necessary. The aether is physical. {2} The aether is required in order to have a more correct physical description of nature. If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or does water exist? A double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules is evidence of the existence of aether. > 1. A molecule is a self-perpetuating pattern of material. As part of the pattern of each component atom, there is a series of layered shells each of which has a symmetrically repetitive density gradient in which wave-systems (electrons) do travel. Inside each atom's nucleus here are a series of similar layers with a much steeper grad d; and wave systems (quarks, etc) circulate therein. Therefore, if you look closely enough (at sub-atomic magnitudes) you will see waves, even though a molecule per se is NOT a wave. 2. Conceptually, there are several different kinds of aether. To Maxwell, the aether consisted of tiny incompressible particles attached to each other by tiny elastic springs. To Lorentz, the aether was a continuum of incompressible matter at rest everywhere in Newton's absolute space. To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word denoting the continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter out of which particles (and waves) are fashioned. As such, there is no aether other than matter itself, which is the only conducting medium for light. [({Since light goes everywhere, matter is everywhere; so there is no such thing as an "empty space".})] Huang: A magnitude is a very simple idea. 5 liters, 20 centimeters, 6 miles, 2,000 watts ... etc. These are all magnitudes. {A "magnitude" is therefore a numerical quantity, regardless of which dimension it measures.} What I was referring to above was magnitudes of length. Quantities of dimension measured as length. If you have 10 meters which exists, and one meter which does not exist, you can compose them to obtain an existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected length 10. {1} Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. {2} Yes....all of these procedures are trivial. They have to be. Triviality is inherent to QM. {3}> 1. A "meter" is a unit of measure whose size was appointed by a body of people considered to be sufficiently expert that the rest of the world accepted their decision. It is used to measure length. As such, it doesn't exist other than in some Bureau of Standards. Otoh, rods that are one meter long do exist and can be used to measure the lengths of other things. A rod that is 10 meters long can exist; but if a rod that is 1 meter long does NOT exist, there is no way that you could add them together or otherwise "compose them to obtain an existentially indeterminate length{wadevrDATmeenz} of magnitude 11, which has expected length 10." 2. Regardless of the meanings of a "probabilistic problem" and of "existential indeterminacy" and "conservation of existential potential"; each can be reworded in terms of anything you want. 3. Substitute "physics" for "QM" and we agree. glird
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 17:23 On Dec 7, 4:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > mpc: Nonsense. The particle is on a deterministic path. The C-60 > molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether. It is no > different than a boat in the water passing through one of multiple > slits. {1} The waves and boat move at almost the same speed but light > does not etc. The bow wave the boat creates in the water enters and > exits the slits ahead of the boat. The waves that exit the slits the > boat does not travel through will pass out ahead of the path the boat > is traveling and create interference with all of the waves that are > exiting all of the slits ahead of the boat. This interference will > alter the direction the boat travels. {2} If you place buoys at the > exits to all of the slits and the buoys turn the bow wave into chop > and interference does not occur and the direction the boat travels is > not altered, do you say the buoys represent ASKING 'which way' so the > boat behaved like a particle? If you do not place any buoys at the > exits to the slits and the bow wave exiting all of the slits creates > interference and alters the direction the boat travels, do you say > since there being no buoys represents not ASKING 'which way' so the > boat behaves like a wave? Of course not, you realize the boat is > creating a bow wave in the water. > There is a boat and a wave. The double slit experiment performed with > C-60 molecules is {similar to} a boat in the water. The C-60 molecule > creates a displacement wave in the aether. There is a C-60 molecule > and a wave > > > 1. A wave caused by a particle moving in a vacuum travels enormously > faster than the particle, but a bow wave travels at almost the same > speed as a boat. Yes, but the point of creation of the displacement wave is where the matter which is the C-60 molecule and the aether physically interact. When the C-60 molecule is originally 'emitted' toward the slits, the displacement wave it creates in the aether propagates outward away from the C-60 molecule at 'c', but as the C-60 molecule moves towards the slits it is continually creating the displacement wave, just like the bow wave a boat makes is always greatest at the bow of the boat, the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates is always greatest where the aether and the matter which is the C-60 molecule are in contact. > 2. Didn't they wait awhile before sending another molecule through a > slit? If so, then the interference patterns would have disappeared > before "the boats" exited either slip. > You send one boat through the slits and you note where it winds up on the shore. You send the boat once again through the slits and you note where it winds up on the shore. You do this over and over again for a single boat. After performing the experiment many, many times for a single boat, the marks the boat made on the shore will be an interference pattern. Same with the C-60 molecule. You fire a single C-60 molecule towards the slits and note where it makes a mark on the screen. Send another C-60 molecule towards the slits and not where it makes a mark on the screen. After sending many, many C-60 molecules through the slits, one at a time, the overall pattern the C-60 molecules make in the screen will be that of an interference pattern. > > mpc: A double slit experiment is performed with a boat. All you know > from the experiment is where the boat is launched from and when there > are buoys placed at the exits to the slits the boat behaves the same > as it does in a single slit experiment and when there aren't buoys at > the exits to the slits and you perform the experiment over and over > again, the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore. {1} > You are adamant that all there is in the experiment is a boat, the > slits, and the shore. You are unwilling or unable to understand water > exists and the moving boat is creating a bow wave in the water. > You conclude when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits you > ASK 'which way' and the boat is a particle. You conclude when > detectors are not placed at the exits to the slits you do not ASK > 'which way' and the boat is a wave. Choosing to believe water does > not exist doesn't make your conclusions any less incorrect. > Wave particle duality: A moving body creates an aether wave. > > 1. Yes, you know there IS an interference pattern on the shore, but > HOW do you know that the boat, rather than some other mechanism, > "creates" it? > Because you see the boat on the shore. You have to push the boat off of the shore in order to perform the experiment again. You place a flag where the boat left a mark on the shore. After the boat comes ashore many, many times, all of the flags placed where the boat came ashore will form an interference pattern. > > mpc: My interpretation of modeling is mathematics. Mathematics is the > judge and jury as to the validity of a theory. But, mathematics is not > nature. I have not heard of magnitudes before but my guess as to what > you are implying is the 'magnitude' that something is a wave vs. the > 'magnitude' something is a particle. But I disagree completely with a > C-60 molecule being a wave at any magnitude. {1} > Now, if you want to re-interpret magnitude to include aether, then > you might have something. 'Dimension' is a mathematical construct, not > nature. The aether is necessary. The aether is physical. {2} The > aether is required in order to have a more correct physical > description of nature. > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > does water exist? A double slit experiment performed with C-60 > molecules is evidence of the existence of aether. > > > 1. A molecule is a self-perpetuating pattern of material. As part of > the pattern of each component atom, there is a series of layered > shells each of which has a symmetrically repetitive density gradient > in which wave-systems (electrons) do travel. Inside each atom's > nucleus here are a series of similar layers with a much steeper grad > d; and wave systems (quarks, etc) circulate therein. Therefore, if you > look closely enough (at sub-atomic magnitudes) you will see waves, > even though a molecule per se is NOT a wave. > 2. Conceptually, there are several different kinds of aether. To > Maxwell, the aether consisted of tiny incompressible particles > attached to each other by tiny elastic springs. To Lorentz, the aether > was a continuum of incompressible matter at rest everywhere in > Newton's absolute space. To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word > denoting the continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter > out of which particles (and waves) are fashioned. As such, there is > no aether other than matter itself, which is the only conducting > medium for light. [({Since light goes everywhere, matter is > everywhere; so there is no such thing as an "empty space".})] > Yes, aether and matter are different forms of the same stuff. I just think we have enough to deal with without having to discuss 'empty' space filling stuff as 'uncompressed matter'. When you make yourself a drink that you want to be cold, do you put 'frozen water' into your glass, or do you put ice into your glass? Yes, they are both labels for the same stuff, but we call it ice for convenience. We call 'uncompressed matter' aether for convenience.
From: BURT on 7 Dec 2009 17:35
On Dec 7, 6:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 9:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 7:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 6, 11:20 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 9:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 6, 9:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, > > > > > > > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously > > > > > > > without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in > > > > > > > momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed > > > > > > > behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving > > > > > > > C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. > > > > > > It requires no energy because no chemical bonds are broken, nor are > > > > > > they reformed after passing through the slit. It is a quantum > > > > > > phenomena and is trivial. > > > > > > Saying it is a 'quantum phenomena' is saying its magic. > > > > > > > NON-TRIVIAL reactions may require or release energy - trivial ones DO > > > > > > NOT. But in any case, there is no chemical reaction. > > > > > > The molecule may be regarded as a wave. It may be regarded as a > > > > > > particle. It is indeterminate whether it is one or the other, until > > > > > > you pose a question in such a way that it FORCES THE ANSWER to be > > > > > > formatted as one or the other. > > > > > > The molecule is not a wave. The molecule is a particle, always. > > > > > That is where you are not just wrong, you are in fact very wrong. > > > > > > > it is all very obvious. > > > > > > If I tell you to "give me a random number", you dont have any idea > > > > > > whether I want discrete or continuous output. My question is > > > > > > ambiguous. If I change the question "give me a random integer" or > > > > > > "give me a random real", then I have modified the question > > > > > > signifigantly. That is what wave particle duality is all about. It is > > > > > > DIRT SIMPLE. > > > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > > > > > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > > > > > does water exist? > > > > > Completely different situation. I would call this the fallacy of bad > > > > analogies. > > > > Incorrect. Exactly the same situation. > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule and the > > > C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern on the screen, is the > > > C-60 molecule a wave or does aether exist? > > > > Detectors will, or won't, be placed at the exits to the slits while > > > the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If detectors are placed at the > > > exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule exits, the > > > C-60 molecule will always be detected exiting a single slit. If > > > detectors are removed at the last instant before the C-60 molecule > > > exits the slits, interference occurs. > > > > What is your explanation to the above? Are you one of those who > > > chooses to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits > > > depending upon what is going to occur in the future? In Aether > > > Displacement, the C-60 molecule is always a particle and it always > > > enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates > > > in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > > > > > > A sentence like "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, > > > > > which has expected length 10" is nonsense. Same for one meter of > > > > > length which does not exist. This is all due to the nonsense required > > > > > in QM. QM requires all of this nonsense because it doesn't understand ... > > > > > The sentence "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, > > > > which has expected length 10" is perfectly, and thoroughly sensible.. > > > > The only thing it suffers from is teh fact that it is inherently > > > > trivial, but as it turns out triviality is not such an evil thing and > > > > the apporach is both sensible and indeed useful. > > > > > What I would like to see is hot you can make mathematical sense of > > > > aether, after Michaelson-Morely completely blew that out of the water, > > > > (perhaps if only temporariliy but nevertheless). > > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of an entrained aether. > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > > > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > > > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > The connectedness between matter and the aether is what causes the > > > aether to be entrained by the matter which is the Earth. The > > > connectedness and the associated entrainment is not the reason for > > > gravity. The aether not being at rest when displaced is the reason for > > > gravity. > > > > Drill a million tiny holes into a bowling ball and put the bowling > > > ball into a tank of water and spin the bowling ball. The water becomes > > > entrained by the bowling ball.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Hmmmm. Interesting. > > > Well, here's what I know about gravity. It is a deformation of space, > > a deformation of dimension. There are such things as gravity waves (at > > least we're looking for them) and it's pretty obvious that they must > > exist at least in principle. This proves that dimension is a medium of > > wave propagation - at least in the case of gravity. > > > Where people have failed to extend that view is in areas such as QM. > > But clearly - it is obvious to me that this view holds here as well. > > Dimansion is a medium of wave propagation on the quantum scale and the > > only difficulty is modelling it. Turns out it is not so difficult, but > > it is quite strange, trivial, paradoxical, and wierd. But it is what > > it is. > > 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. This is absurd. Dimension is part of the continuity of everything. Dimension has direction. Up down,right left,front back If you think in terms of dimension you only have 6 directions in space. Mitch Raemsch > > A gravity wave is an aether wave. > > It doesn't matter if we are discussing the Earth or a C-60 molecule, > aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |