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: Huang on 11 Dec 2009 23:11 On Dec 11, 6:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html > 'Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing"' > > Exactly how does a virtual particle form from nothing? > > Exactly how does a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enter, > travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without > releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum? > > Exactly how is a C-60 molecule able to enter one slit or multiple > slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits, > or not, in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slits)? > > Virtual particles do not exist and the C-60 molecule always enters and > exits a single slit. Consider this. [1] "Any probabilistic problem from traditional mathematics can be restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." From that statement you may regard the Schroedinger Wave Equation as a PDF which describes NOT MERELY the probability of finding an electron in a given reqion of space, BUT ALSO it may be regarded as in fact describing the very bending of space itself. The difference between one and the other is NO DIFFERENT than different frames of reference in the famous rocket thought experiment form GR. It is no different. Whether we use Schroedinger Wave Equation to describe location of electrons, or bending of space, this is your choice to make. BOTH are true.
From: mpc755 on 12 Dec 2009 08:27 On Dec 11, 11:11 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 6:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html > > 'Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing"' > > > Exactly how does a virtual particle form from nothing? > > > Exactly how does a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enter, > > travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without > > releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum? > > > Exactly how is a C-60 molecule able to enter one slit or multiple > > slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits, > > or not, in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slits)? > > > Virtual particles do not exist and the C-60 molecule always enters and > > exits a single slit. > > Consider this. > [1] "Any probabilistic problem from traditional mathematics can be > restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." > > From that statement you may regard the Schroedinger Wave Equation as > a > PDF which describes NOT MERELY the probability of finding an electron > in a given reqion of space, BUT ALSO it may be regarded as in fact > describing the very bending of space itself. > > The difference between one and the other is NO DIFFERENT than > different frames of reference in the famous rocket thought experiment > form GR. It is no different. > > Whether we use Schroedinger Wave Equation to describe location of > electrons, or bending of space, this is your choice to make. BOTH are > true. 'Bending of space' is meaningless when discussing nature. What is being bent? And your answer will then be 'space'. But we are not discussing three dimensional space, of course. We are discussing the 'stuff of space'. The substance which occupies three dimensional space. All we are doing is apply the least amount of properties to the substance of space. And the least amount of properties we can apply to the substance of space is that it is not at rest when displaced. So, again, I as of those who can think beyond their spoon fed indoctrination into the nonsense, is it more likely a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum and is it more likely a C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slit depending upon what will occur in the future (detectors are placed, and, or, removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)), or is it more likely the C-60 molecule is creating a displacement wave in the substance of space?
From: mpc755 on 12 Dec 2009 08:29 On Dec 11, 11:11 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 6:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html > > 'Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing"' > > > Exactly how does a virtual particle form from nothing? > > > Exactly how does a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enter, > > travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without > > releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum? > > > Exactly how is a C-60 molecule able to enter one slit or multiple > > slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits, > > or not, in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slits)? > > > Virtual particles do not exist and the C-60 molecule always enters and > > exits a single slit. > > Consider this. > [1] "Any probabilistic problem from traditional mathematics can be > restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." > > From that statement you may regard the Schroedinger Wave Equation as > a > PDF which describes NOT MERELY the probability of finding an electron > in a given reqion of space, BUT ALSO it may be regarded as in fact > describing the very bending of space itself. > > The difference between one and the other is NO DIFFERENT than > different frames of reference in the famous rocket thought experiment > form GR. It is no different. > > Whether we use Schroedinger Wave Equation to describe location of > electrons, or bending of space, this is your choice to make. BOTH are > true. 'Bending of space' is meaningless when discussing nature. What is being bent? And your answer will then be 'space'. But we are not discussing three dimensional space, of course. We are discussing the 'stuff of space'. The substance which occupies three dimensional space. All we are doing is apply the least amount of properties to the substance of space. And the least amount of properties we can apply to the substance of space is that it is not at rest when displaced. So, again, I ask of those who can think beyond their spoon fed indoctrination into the nonsense, is it more likely a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum and is it more likely a C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slit depending upon what will occur in the future (detectors are placed, and, or, removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)), or is it more likely the C-60 molecule is creating a displacement wave in the substance of space?
From: Huang on 12 Dec 2009 09:53 On Dec 12, 7:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 11:11 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 6:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html > > > 'Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing"' > > > > Exactly how does a virtual particle form from nothing? > > > > Exactly how does a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enter, > > > travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without > > > releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum? > > > > Exactly how is a C-60 molecule able to enter one slit or multiple > > > slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits, > > > or not, in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slits)? > > > > Virtual particles do not exist and the C-60 molecule always enters and > > > exits a single slit. > > > Consider this. > > [1] "Any probabilistic problem from traditional mathematics can be > > restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." > > > From that statement you may regard the Schroedinger Wave Equation as > > a > > PDF which describes NOT MERELY the probability of finding an electron > > in a given reqion of space, BUT ALSO it may be regarded as in fact > > describing the very bending of space itself. > > > The difference between one and the other is NO DIFFERENT than > > different frames of reference in the famous rocket thought experiment > > form GR. It is no different. > > > Whether we use Schroedinger Wave Equation to describe location of > > electrons, or bending of space, this is your choice to make. BOTH are > > true. > > 'Bending of space' is meaningless when discussing nature. > > What is being bent? And your answer will then be 'space'. > > But we are not discussing three dimensional space, of course. > > We are discussing the 'stuff of space'. The substance which occupies > three dimensional space. > > All we are doing is apply the least amount of properties to the > substance of space. > > And the least amount of properties we can apply to the substance of > space is that it is not at rest when displaced. > > So, again, I ask of those who can think beyond their spoon fed > indoctrination into the nonsense, is it more likely a C-60 molecule, > 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel through, and exit multiple > slits simultaneously without releasing energy, requiring energy, or > having a change in momentum and is it more likely a C-60 molecule > enters one slit or multiple slit depending upon what will occur in the > future (detectors are placed, and, or, removed from the exits to the > slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)), or is it more likely > the C-60 molecule is creating a displacement wave in the substance of > space?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What do you suppose that it means when physicists say that LENGTH is contracted when discussing the very well known thoery of Relativity ?? And did you notice that they say the same kinds of things regarding TIME ?? This is what it means - when they say that "space is bent". It is dimension which is being bent, twisted, expanded, contorted, etc. Length and Time are Dimensions. Yes, the word dimension is frequently used in mathematics, but it is also an artifact of physical reality as well. When you say that dimension is not physical - this is simply wrong. Take a ruler, yardstick, tapemeasure, whatever, and go measure the length of something. You have just made a Physical Observation of dimension. Take a clock and let it run for 5 minutes, you have just made a measurement, and a Physical Observation of the dimension of time. In fact, if there were no such thing as time in physics, it is very doubtful that mathematicians would have ever come up with the idea on their own. If we lived in a world without time, mathematicians would have never had any reason to incorporate it into models and probably would have never even concieved of it in the first place. In this regard, mathematics owes a debt of gratitude to physics for this thing known as Time. Try to imagine this - a universe with 3 dimensions of time and 1 dimension of length. It might be a pretty wierd place. Difficult to even understand it. Difficult to imagine such a thing. And mathematicians would have never discovered this thing known as time if it werent occuring in nature. Bending of space is meaningful in physics. It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has not happened yet. Resorting to things such as "existential indeterminacy" is typically regarded as breaking the rules, doing something which is not mathematically valid. In my opinion, I believe that mathematics is not the only tool available for making quantified abstract models of things. Math is the best tool, but not the only tool. And conjectural models are "equivalent" to mathematical models because they both produce the same exact numerical results. That is why Schrodinger Wave Equation may be regarded as mathematics, or it can be restated in terms of "conjectural modelling" in which case it describes bent space. These views are equivalent. These are verydifferent views, but they are equivalent. No different than the equivalence that we see in the famous elevator example from GR. It is exactly the same thing. When you see this, then you will understand QM as a layman should.
From: glird on 12 Dec 2009 16:19
On Dec 11, 3:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: |