Aether Displacement
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC versus cranks : 1-0
Next: Higgs security
From: BURT on 2 Apr 2010 19:23 On Apr 2, 4:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 2, 5:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 6:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 1, 8:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 1, 5:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 1, 7:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 5:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 1:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 4:41 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 9:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 12:45 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 9:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 11:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the available slits. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The C60 molecule could easily be replaced with any other molecular > > > > > > > > > > > > > > form and they will always have the exact same quantum macro aether > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wave. Free electric particles can wave collapse taking the macro > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether wave with them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule can be replaced by any 'particle', including a > > > > > > > > > > > > > photon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every moving physical 'particle' has an associated physical aether > > > > > > > > > > > > > wave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The size of the associated aether wave will be determined by the > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'particles' momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Particle' is in quotes because it is my assumption a photon is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > directed/pointed wave where the 'particle' is part of the wave and > > > > > > > > > > > > > consists of a very small region of the overall photon wave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The photon 'particle' is detected as a quantum of matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "His 1924 doctoral thesis, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Research on Quantum Theory), introduced his theory of electron waves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This included the wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on > > > > > > > > > > > > > the work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck on light. The thesis > > > > > > > > > > > > > examiners, unsure of the material, passed his thesis to Einstein for > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluation who endorsed his wave-particle duality proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > wholeheartedly; de Broglie was awarded his doctorate. This research > > > > > > > > > > > > > culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving > > > > > > > > > > > > > particle or object had an associated wave. De Broglie thus created a > > > > > > > > > > > > > new field in physics, the mécanique ondulatoire, or wave mechanics, > > > > > > > > > > > > > uniting the physics of light and matter. For this he won the Nobel > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prize in Physics in 1929. Among the applications of this work has been > > > > > > > > > > > > > the development of electron microscopes to get much better image > > > > > > > > > > > > > resolution than optical ones, because of the shorter wavelengths of > > > > > > > > > > > > > electrons compared with photons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In his later career, de Broglie worked to develop a causal explanation > > > > > > > > > > > > > of wave mechanics, in opposition to the wholly probabilistic models > > > > > > > > > > > > > which dominate quantum mechanical theory. Today, this explanation is > > > > > > > > > > > > > known as the de BroglieBohm theory, since it was refined by David > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bohm in the 1950s." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > de Broglie was correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether wave passes through two slits in an experiment but where in > > > > > > > > > > > > nature does that same event happen? Where in nature is there two > > > > > > > > > > > > slits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > You are confusing the ability of the photon to create an interference > > > > > > > > > > > pattern in a double slit experiment with the ability of the photon to > > > > > > > > > > > collapse and be detected as a quantum of matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the photoelectric effect experiment, photons are physically > > > > > > > > > > > entering and occupying three dimensional space in the metal as quanta > > > > > > > > > > > of matter which causes electrons to be emitted. > > > > > > > > > > > > When a photon enters your eye it collapses and is detected as a > > > > > > > > > > > quantum of matter. This quantum of matter then 'radiates as heat'. > > > > > > > > > > > What is occurring after the photon is detected as a quantum of matter > > > > > > > > > > > is there is still an aether wave but it 'dissipates'. Think of an > > > > > > > > > > > ocean wave which propagates through a channel and is 'detected' by a > > > > > > > > > > > bunch of buoys. The wave still exists but it 'dissipates'. > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether wave 'dissipates' by interacting with matter which > > > > > > > > > > > generates heat.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > Where in nature are there two slits? > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > You are confusing the interference pattern the photon is able to > > > > > > > > > create in a double slit experiment with the photon's ability to > > > > > > > > > collapse and be detected as a quantum of matter. > > > > > > > > > > When the photon hits your eye there is no 'two slits'. When the photon > > > > > > > > > hits your eye it collapses and is detected as a quantum of matter. > > > > > > > > > > There are no 'slits' in the photoelectric effect experiment. The > > > > > > > > > photon physically enters and occupies three dimensional space in the > > > > > > > > > metal as a quantum of matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > In your example the C-60 molecule goes through two slits. Where does > > > > > > > > that happen to molecules in nature? > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit in a double > > > > > > > slit experiment. It is the associated aether displacement wave which > > > > > > > enters and exits the available slits. The aether displacement wave > > > > > > > creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes > > > > > > > decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it > > > > > > > into chop) and there is no interference.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Should not the aether wave be divided by the matter partition > > > > > > inbetween and come back together on the other side in order to self > > > > > > interfere? > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > That's exactly what occurs. The direction the C-60 molecule travels is > > > > > altered by this interference.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > So self interference is where it is at mpc! > > > > You got it! Self interference of the associated aether wave. > > > > > Though the center of the wave ought to be where the C-60 is located.. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > There is a probability of finding the corpuscle at a particular point > > > of the wave. > > > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > > The wave nature of the electron > > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929'http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-le... > > > > "I must restrict myself to the assertion that when an observation is > > > carried out enabling the localization of the corpuscle, the observer > > > is invariably induced to assign to the corpuscle a position in the > > > interior of the wave and the probability of it being at a particular > > > point M of the wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude, > > > that is to say the intensity at M."- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I believe probablity is the same as motion through a specific point. > > What I mean by that is if a particle moves fast in its wave it will > > not be at that approximate position for every long. While when it > > moves slowly it is found more often. > > > Speeding up and slowing down in the wave determines where you will > > find the particle most and least. > > > Mitch Raemsch; the one valid wave function is a single sin wave > > de Broglie said it correctly. > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > The wave nature of the electron > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929'http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-le... > > "I must restrict myself to the assertion that when an observation is > carried out enabling the localization of the corpuscle, the observer > is invariably induced to assign to the corpuscle a position in the > interior of the wave and the probability of it being at a particular > point M of the wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude, > that is to say the intensity at M."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Einstein was right not to accept probability. Particles are not going to pop up into existence along the wave. No instead they move fast or slow in the continuum and are found more often where they move slow and least where they flow fast. This is quantum mechanics not randomness. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 2 Apr 2010 19:23 On Apr 2, 7:11 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > it seems that your whole reply amounts > to recitinf from the Department of Einsteinmania, > The Musical Dept. > If you actually read the post you would realize it is different than Einstein's GR/SR. In Aether Displacement, everything is with respect to the aether where the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the neighboring aether. In Aether Displacement, this is the aether's state of displacement. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming pool." In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether. Just as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at rest with respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether, whether the body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. In the analogy the moving swimmer creates a displacement wave in the water. A moving body creates a displacement wave in the aether. 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles' http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the super fluid medium. A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the aether. Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the object. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. A C-60 molecule displaces the aether. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. Each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the plate displaces the aether. The aether displaced by one plate extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the singular region." This is similar to Einstein's concept of: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of 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. The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less connected to the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and Keating Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. If you looked up from the surface of the Earth to 'see' the aether it would appear as if the aether were 'flowing' east to west compared to the surface of the Earth. The aether is still 'flowing' west to east but not at the same rate as the surface of the Earth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations." Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster. I place quotes around terms like 'entrainment', 'flow', and 'drag' to note I am not 100% sure this is exactly what the state of the aether is in terms of the concepts the terms denote. The aether may be a one something. There is a train and an embankment. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - Albert Einstein Relative to the train and the embankment the state of the aether is most determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is to the train. For this gedanken, the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. Three Observers get together at M'. They each hold an atomic clock. They synchronize their clocks. One Observer begins to walk to B'. As the Observer walks to B' the observer, and the clock, are walking against the 'flow' of aether. This increases the aether pressure on the clock and causes the clock to tick slower. The Observer walking the clock to A' is walking with the 'flow' of aether which reduces the pressure associated with the aether on the atomic clock and the atomic clock ticks faster. When the Observers get to A' and B' their clocks are once again under the same amount of aether pressure as is the clock at M' and all three clocks tick at the same rate. Let's assume the clocks at A', M', and B' read 12:00:05, 12:00:03, and 12:00:01 respectively when they are at A', M', and B'. A flash of light occurs at A/A' and B/B'. The light arrives at M simultaneously. The flash of light occurs at B' when the clock at B' reads 12:00:01. The flash of light occurs at A' when the clock at A' reads 12:00:05. The light from B' propagates with the 'flow' of aether and takes 5 seconds to reach M'. The light from A' propagates against the 'flow' of aether and takes 9 seconds to reach M'. The light from the lightning strike at B/B' arrives at M' when the clock at M' reads 12:00:08. The light from the lightning strike at A/A' arrives at M' when the clock at M' reads 12:00:12. The three Observers get back together to discuss the experiment. The Observer at B' says the flash at B' occurred at 12:00:01. The Observer at A' says the flash of light at A' occurred at 12:00:05. The Observer at M' says the flash from B' arrived at 12:00:08 and the flash from A' arrived at 12:00:12. The Observers conclude the lightning strikes were not simultaneous and the light propagated at 'c' from B' to M' and propagated at 'c' from A' to M' and both sets of light waves took 7 seconds to arrive at M'. If the Observers on the train knew their state with respect to the state of the aether then the Observers would have been able to determine the rate at which their clocks ticked as they were walked to A' and B' and they would have been able to conclude the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously, in nature. Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation are two experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date.
From: mpc755 on 2 Apr 2010 19:26 On Apr 2, 7:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > de Broglie said it correctly. > > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > The wave nature of the electron > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929'http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-le... > > > "I must restrict myself to the assertion that when an observation is > > carried out enabling the localization of the corpuscle, the observer > > is invariably induced to assign to the corpuscle a position in the > > interior of the wave and the probability of it being at a particular > > point M of the wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude, > > that is to say the intensity at M."- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Einstein was right not to accept probability. Particles are not going > to pop up into existence along the wave. No instead they move fast or > slow in the continuum and are found more often where they move slow > and least where they flow fast. This is quantum mechanics not > randomness. > > Mitch Raemsch Probability is fine when determining the likelihood of finding the particle at any particular point. The problem is when that is misinterpreted to not understanding the C-60 molecule travels a single path in a double slit experiment.
From: BURT on 2 Apr 2010 19:37 On Apr 2, 4:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 2, 7:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > de Broglie said it correctly. > > > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > > The wave nature of the electron > > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929'http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-le... > > > > "I must restrict myself to the assertion that when an observation is > > > carried out enabling the localization of the corpuscle, the observer > > > is invariably induced to assign to the corpuscle a position in the > > > interior of the wave and the probability of it being at a particular > > > point M of the wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude, > > > that is to say the intensity at M."- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Einstein was right not to accept probability. Particles are not going > > to pop up into existence along the wave. No instead they move fast or > > slow in the continuum and are found more often where they move slow > > and least where they flow fast. This is quantum mechanics not > > randomness. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Probability is fine when determining the likelihood of finding the > particle at any particular point. But probability is not the underpinning. Fast and slow even to rest momentum gives the same result. One is a theoretical match the and other is the true basis. Einstein would never accept probability as the basis for order in the universe and neither do I. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 2 Apr 2010 22:47
On Apr 2, 7:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 2, 4:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 2, 7:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > de Broglie said it correctly. > > > > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > > > The wave nature of the electron > > > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929'http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-le... > > > > > "I must restrict myself to the assertion that when an observation is > > > > carried out enabling the localization of the corpuscle, the observer > > > > is invariably induced to assign to the corpuscle a position in the > > > > interior of the wave and the probability of it being at a particular > > > > point M of the wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude, > > > > that is to say the intensity at M."- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Einstein was right not to accept probability. Particles are not going > > > to pop up into existence along the wave. No instead they move fast or > > > slow in the continuum and are found more often where they move slow > > > and least where they flow fast. This is quantum mechanics not > > > randomness. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Probability is fine when determining the likelihood of finding the > > particle at any particular point. > > But probability is not the underpinning. Fast and slow even to rest > momentum gives the same result. One is a theoretical match the and > other is the true basis. > > Einstein would never accept probability as the basis for order in the > universe and neither do I. > > Mitch Raemsch Neither does de Broglie. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "EDITOR'S Note...But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave-functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation" "When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics [1] I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles." 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE The wave nature of the electron Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-lecture.pdf 'To sum up the meaning of wave mechanics it can be stated that: "A wave must be associated with each corpuscle and only the study of the waves propagation will yield information to us on the successive positions of the corpuscle in space". In conventional large-scale mechanical phenomena the anticipated positions lie along a curve which is the trajectory in the conventional meaning of the word.' |