NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 14 Jul 2010 02:19 On Jul 14, 1:50 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:04:55 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit in a double > >slit experiment? > > >Because it always enters and exits a single slit, duh! > > Or perhaps detection involves a process of localization. > > Then if you give a wave packet an opportunity to localize at a slit > then that is where it will be able to happen. > > But if you don't provide such an opportunity, the spread out packet > can pass through both slits and localize somewhere else. > Experiment 1: The slits in a double slit experiment are long enough that it will take the particle one year to travel the length of the slits. Six months after the particle enters the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits. The particle is always detected exiting a single slit. Experiment 2: The slits in a double slit experiment are long enough that it will take the particle one year to travel the length of the slits. Six months after the particle enters the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits. Three months later, or nine months since the particle entered the slit(s), the detectors are removed. Repeat and the particle forms an interference pattern on the screen. What occurred physically in nature to cause this to occur? If the particle exists across the length of its wave function how does it enter a single slit or multiple slit depending upon what is going to occur in the future? It doesn't. The particle travels a single path and always enters and exits a single slit. A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. The analogy is a boat and its bow wave. A boat enters and exits a single slit. The bow wave enters and exits multiple slits. The bow wave exits the slits creates interference which alters the direction the boat travels. Placing buoys at the exits to the slits in order to detect the boat causes decoherence of the bow wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. The moving particle enters and exits a single slit. The associated dark matter displacement wave enters and exits multiple slits. The dark matter displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated dark matter displacement wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. > > > >A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. > > That is a similar idea to this theory. Which to believe is a matter of > preference. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation > > ".....The velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the > wavefunction...." '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 Dark Matter Displacement, the external field is the dark matter. 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. The dark matter displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated dark matter displacement wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. More from de Broglie: "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." "When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics 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." "In spite of the fact that the physical nature of the problems in general relativity and double solution theory are different, the methods of demonstration are the same." 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein' http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/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, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state." The state of the dark matter as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the dark matter in neighboring places is the dark matter's state of displacement. The dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back. The displacing back is the pressure the dark matter exerts towards matter. Pressure exerted by displaced matter towards matter is gravity.
From: Surfer on 14 Jul 2010 09:44 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:19:40 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 14, 1:50 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:04:55 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit in a double >> >slit experiment? >> >> >Because it always enters and exits a single slit, duh! >> >> Or perhaps detection involves a process of localization. >> >> Then if you give a wave packet an opportunity to localize at a slit >> then that is where it will be able to happen. >> >> But if you don't provide such an opportunity, the spread out packet >> can pass through both slits and localize somewhere else. >> > >Experiment 1: > >The slits in a double slit experiment are long enough that it will >take the particle one year to travel the length of the slits. Six >months after the particle enters the slit(s) detectors are placed at >the exits. The particle is always detected exiting a single slit. > Well, remember that the material between the slits is mainly empty space, so a wavepacket can travel through both the slits AND the material in between and then localize where ever it happens to do so. However, it can only localize once, so that means it can only end up at one exit detector. >Experiment 2: > >The slits in a double slit experiment are long enough that it will >take the particle one year to travel the length of the slits. Six >months after the particle enters the slit(s) detectors are placed at >the exits. Three months later, or nine months since the particle >entered the slit(s), the detectors are removed. Repeat and the >particle forms an interference pattern on the screen. > In this case, the wave packet doesn't localize at an exit detector so it can exit from the slits and from the material between the slits. However, the components that exit the slits are dominant so interference between them affects where localization occurs on the screen. A single wave packet will localize to a single point on the screen, but localization of many packets will eventually produce an interference pattern. > >What occurred physically in nature to cause this to occur? > See above. > >If the particle exists across the length of its wave function how does >it enter a single slit or multiple slit depending upon what is going >to occur in the future? > In the model I just described the future depends on what happened in the past, not the other way round. > >It doesn't. The particle travels a single path and always enters and >exits a single slit. > That is an alternative model. If it works thats fine.
From: mpc755 on 14 Jul 2010 09:57 On Jul 14, 9:44 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:19:40 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Jul 14, 1:50 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:04:55 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit in a double > >> >slit experiment? > > >> >Because it always enters and exits a single slit, duh! > > >> Or perhaps detection involves a process of localization. > > >> Then if you give a wave packet an opportunity to localize at a slit > >> then that is where it will be able to happen. > > >> But if you don't provide such an opportunity, the spread out packet > >> can pass through both slits and localize somewhere else. > > >Experiment 1: > > >The slits in a double slit experiment are long enough that it will > >take the particle one year to travel the length of the slits. Six > >months after the particle enters the slit(s) detectors are placed at > >the exits. The particle is always detected exiting a single slit. > > Well, remember that the material between the slits is mainly empty > space, so a wavepacket can travel through both the slits AND the > material in between and then localize where ever it happens to do so. > However, it can only localize once, so that means it can only end up > at one exit detector. > To think a C-60 molecule can travel through the material in between the slits and not require energy, lose energy, or have a change in momentum is ridiculous nonsense. > >Experiment 2: > > >The slits in a double slit experiment are long enough that it will > >take the particle one year to travel the length of the slits. Six > >months after the particle enters the slit(s) detectors are placed at > >the exits. Three months later, or nine months since the particle > >entered the slit(s), the detectors are removed. Repeat and the > >particle forms an interference pattern on the screen. > > In this case, the wave packet doesn't localize at an exit detector so > it can exit from the slits and from the material between the slits. > However, the components that exit the slits are dominant so > interference between them affects where localization occurs on the > screen. > > A single wave packet will localize to a single point on the screen, > but localization of many packets will eventually produce an > interference pattern. > > > > > > >What occurred physically in nature to cause this to occur? > > See above. > > >If the particle exists across the length of its wave function how does > >it enter a single slit or multiple slit depending upon what is going > >to occur in the future? > > In the model I just described the future depends on what happened in > the past, not the other way round. > > > > >It doesn't. The particle travels a single path and always enters and > >exits a single slit. > > That is an alternative model. If it works thats fine. It is not just an alternative model. Thinking a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms can travel through the material separating the slits without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum is ridiculous nonsense and has nothing to do with the physics of nature. Not only that, but the C-60 molecule magically has to localize instantaneously the instant it is detected. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM and what it requires you to assume occurs, such as your 'understanding' of a double slit experiment is not an alternative model. It is absurd ridiculous nonsense. A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave.
From: mpc755 on 14 Jul 2010 10:01 On Jul 14, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 9:44 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:19:40 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >On Jul 14, 1:50 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:04:55 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > > >> >Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit in a double > > >> >slit experiment? > > > >> >Because it always enters and exits a single slit, duh! > > > >> Or perhaps detection involves a process of localization. > > > >> Then if you give a wave packet an opportunity to localize at a slit > > >> then that is where it will be able to happen. > > > >> But if you don't provide such an opportunity, the spread out packet > > >> can pass through both slits and localize somewhere else. > > > >Experiment 1: > > > >The slits in a double slit experiment are long enough that it will > > >take the particle one year to travel the length of the slits. Six > > >months after the particle enters the slit(s) detectors are placed at > > >the exits. The particle is always detected exiting a single slit. > > > Well, remember that the material between the slits is mainly empty > > space, so a wavepacket can travel through both the slits AND the > > material in between and then localize where ever it happens to do so. > > However, it can only localize once, so that means it can only end up > > at one exit detector. > > To think a C-60 molecule can travel through the material in between > the slits and not require energy, lose energy, or have a change in > momentum is ridiculous nonsense. > > > > > >Experiment 2: > > > >The slits in a double slit experiment are long enough that it will > > >take the particle one year to travel the length of the slits. Six > > >months after the particle enters the slit(s) detectors are placed at > > >the exits. Three months later, or nine months since the particle > > >entered the slit(s), the detectors are removed. Repeat and the > > >particle forms an interference pattern on the screen. > > > In this case, the wave packet doesn't localize at an exit detector so > > it can exit from the slits and from the material between the slits. > > However, the components that exit the slits are dominant so > > interference between them affects where localization occurs on the > > screen. > > > A single wave packet will localize to a single point on the screen, > > but localization of many packets will eventually produce an > > interference pattern. > > > >What occurred physically in nature to cause this to occur? > > > See above. > > > >If the particle exists across the length of its wave function how does > > >it enter a single slit or multiple slit depending upon what is going > > >to occur in the future? > > > In the model I just described the future depends on what happened in > > the past, not the other way round. > > > >It doesn't. The particle travels a single path and always enters and > > >exits a single slit. > > > That is an alternative model. If it works thats fine. > > It is not just an alternative model. Thinking a C-60 molecule, 60 > interconnected atoms can travel through the material separating the > slits without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change > in momentum is ridiculous nonsense and has nothing to do with the > physics of nature. Not only that, but the C-60 molecule magically has > to localize instantaneously the instant it is detected. > > The Copenhagen interpretation of QM and what it requires you to assume > occurs, such as your 'understanding' of a double slit experiment is > not an alternative model. It is absurd ridiculous nonsense. > > A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. If the particle was able to travel through the material separating the slits then why is the particle never detected if a detector is placed at the end of the material separating the slits? Why is the particle only always detected exiting the open slit? Now, if you say it is a probability then I will have to re-quote de Broglie where he explains how a statistical probability does not explain what occurs physically in nature.
From: Surfer on 14 Jul 2010 11:19
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:01:34 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> To think a C-60 molecule can travel through the material in between >> the slits and not require energy, lose energy, or have a change in >> momentum is ridiculous nonsense. >> <snip> > >If the particle was able to travel through the material separating the >slits then why is the particle never detected if a detector is placed >at the end of the material separating the slits? Why is the particle >only always detected exiting the open slit? Now, if you say it is a >probability then I will have to re-quote de Broglie where he explains >how a statistical probability does not explain what occurs physically >in nature. > In the model I was describing, the positions where a particle could be detected would depend on the localization process. Different theories about that exist, but here is one (The CSL Model) that seems well developed. How Stands Collapse I Philip Pearle http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611211 How Stands Collapse II Philip Pearle http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611212 Its possible that something as big as a C60 model would be localized at all times (a tennis ball certainly would be). If that were the case the molecule would only be able to pass through one slit as you suggest, but an interference pattern would probably not be very pronounced in that case. However individual photons have no trouble interfering even after being split into two components sent down different arms of a Michelson interferometer. |