Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 4 Jul 2010 09:16 On Jul 4, 9:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 9:04 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/3/10 10:24 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > > Don't be discouraged, but do let nature be an empirical guide and > > > final arbiter. > > > There is no choice, observation is the final arbiter, Oldershaw! > > Observation of double slit experiments is evidence of an associated > aether wave entering and exiting multiple slits. When the aether wave > exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the > particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the > aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no > interference. > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory' > Louis de BROGLIEhttp://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > "This result may be interpretated by stating that the current > statistical theory considers as spread out in the entire wave, devoid > of singularity, that which in reality is totally concentrated in the > singularity. It is on account of the foregoing interpretation that I > simultaneously considered two distinct solutions of the wave > propagation equation connected by eq. (33), one, v, having physical > reality, and the other, ø, normed, and of statistical character. I > therefore named this reinterpretation of wave mechanics the double > solution theory. By distinction of the two waves v and ø, the mystery > of the double character, subjective and objective, of the wave in the > usual theory, vanishes, and one no longer has to give a simple > probability representation the strange property of creating observable > phenomena." > > A probability is not an observation. > A probability does not describe what occurs physically in nature. > 'Scientists supersize quantum mechanics'http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html > > "Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of > 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a > series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle > was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously." > > What is observed vibrating are the associated aether waves.
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Jul 2010 14:03 On 7/4/10 12:57 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > The statement was not 'the universe is a fractal'. It was: the universe > has a fractal structure. > The difference is, that the universe means: everything. > The assumption is, that the universe is organized with kind of steps, > that are self-similar. The steps we know of are: sub-atomic, atoms, > planets, planetary systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super-clusters. > > TH Obviously not fractal. Atoms don't behave anything like planetary systems and irregular galaxies.
From: hanson on 4 Jul 2010 14:05 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:UOydnQx999ddGq3RnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 7/3/10 10:07 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> In journals like Nature and the Journal of Theoretical Biology, many >> authors have demonstrated empirically and analytically how fractal >> structures are energetically favored and maximize the efficiency >> collecting light (see: Phyllotaxis), or maximizing the absorption of >> oxygen in the lungs, or the absorption of nutrients in the intestines. > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote > Doesn't work over the range of atoms to galaxies! > hanson wrote: .... ahahahaha... Nobody made that claim, Sam. You being a hardcore Einstein Dingleberry are of course not cognizant of SEFC (Self Similarity/Emergence/Fractals&Chaos).... Sam, like you so often say: "Google is your friend"... Try it, Sam. ahahaha... ahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Huang on 4 Jul 2010 14:33 > > > The statement was not 'the universe is a fractal'. It was: the universe > > has a fractal structure. > > The difference is, that the universe means: everything. > > The assumption is, that the universe is organized with kind of steps, > > that are self-similar. The steps we know of are: sub-atomic, atoms, > > planets, planetary systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super-clusters. > > > TH I will agree that galaxies looks like vortices. I will agree that atoms looks like vortices. I will agree that solar systems looks like vortices. I will agree that eddie currents looks like vortices. I would even agree that living organisms looks like vortices. But so does my toilet when I flush. Makes a real nice vortice. A vortice or eddie is nothing but a particular type of geometric / dynamical thing. What is the difference between this form and lines, points, or planes. If I see large volumes, and inside the large volumes there are smaller ones, and so on, they why cant I just say that spacetime itself is a fractal because the property of volume exists on all scales and so you have self similarity based on the notion of length, area, volume or whatever ? You want to do this with dynamics. I agree, the universe may look like that in ways. But visual inspection and mathematical analysis are 2 dif things. What happens to the fractal on the quantum scale - thats what I'd like to know. Kinematic equations do not work in QM, the planetary model failed see : Neils Bohr, Bohr Atom, etc.
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Jul 2010 15:15
On 7/4/10 1:33 PM, Huang wrote: > I will agree that galaxies looks like vortices. The majority of galaxies are not spirals! > I will agree that atoms looks like vortices. Atoms don't "look like" or behave like vortices! > I will agree that solar systems looks like vortices. Planetary system do not rotate like vortices. For our solar system to rotate like a vortex, angular momentum divided by mass for each planet would be the same. And of course, that is not the case. > I will agree that eddie currents looks like vortices. Eddy currents are source, geometry and material dependent. In general they are not vorticies in any sense. > I would even agree that living organisms looks like vortices. Perhaps you do, but my frog does not. = |