Origins of the universe
in [Math]
|
Prev: Mathematical Intelligencer's lifting and infringement on AP's sci.math posts #601 ,602, 603 Correcting Math
Next: Mathematical Intelligencer's lifting and infringement on AP's sci.math posts #601 ,602, 603 Correcting Math
From: mpc755 on 28 Jun 2010 23:51 On Jun 28, 11:07�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 5:09�pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 8:59 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On 27 June, 04:55, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 11:33 pm, Boikat <boi...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 10:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 4:15 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > "I want to know how God created the universe. I want to know his > > > > > > > thoughts. The rest are just details." Albert EInstein > > > > > > > > Hypersphere cosmology was the beginning with energy created in its > > > > > > > surface of space. First there was inflation that stopped gravity from > > > > > > > bringing it all back together. Einstein's universe is closed finite > > > > > > > yet unbounded hypersphere cosmology. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream. > > > > > > > The following is an image of a jet stream: > > > > > > >http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > > > > > No, that's a schematic representation of size of the Universe through > > > > > time. > > > > > It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing. > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > > The material is maether. > > > > Maether has mass. > > > > > Maether is continually emitted into the jet stream the universe is, or > > > > the local universe exists in. > > > > > In the following image, '1st Stars' is where the pressure is great > > > > enough to cause the maether to be compressed into matter. > > > > >http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > > > > The following image of the Rindler Horizon is also an image of the jet > > > > stream the universe is, or the local universe exists in: > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#Geodesics-Hidequotedtext - > > > > did someone not check the child gate was properly latched when they > > > left sci.physics? > > > How is matter formed? > > > Are you going to say from energy? From radiation? > > > Mass is conserved. > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > Aether is uncompressed maether and matter is compressed maether. > > > In the following image, '1st Stars' is where the pressure is great > > enough to cause the maether to be compressed into matter. > > >http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There is no molecule wave. > > Mitch Raemsch Correct. The moving molecule has an associated aether wave.
From: aganunitsi on 29 Jun 2010 02:33 On Jun 28, 8:50�pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <entangled snip> The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment was discussed in a thread... last month? Not only does it rely on superposition (Copenhagen Interpretation) but also entanglement (Copenhagen Interpretation). How does your aether displacement wave theory explain entanglement? What ties your aether displacement wave to any particular particle, even non-locally? So far you've only described experiments that have/would give identical observable results, but you claim "but I'm saying the result is occurring because of an aether displacement wave, instead of superposition or entanglement as predicted by quantum theory". What experiment would show a divergence between the theories? Or will they always give identical results? And no, you don't get to say "perform experiment x and result y will demonstrate an aether displacement wave". That is not falsification. Falsification requires "perform experiment x and result y cannot happen if the aether displacement wave does exist but superposition and/or entanglement do not exist". If there is essentially no difference, then your aether wave theory is just another statement of the pilot wave theory - been around for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave The more modern version, the de Broglie�Bohm theory, is completely unnecessary, in the Occam's razor sense of unnecessary. The only way to falsify the Copenhagen Interpretation in relation to the pilot wave theory would be to prove that alternate universes exist (required in pilot wave theory). Since these alternate universes can have no observers, and we are observers, falsification by us is impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation#Occam.27s_razor_criticism
From: funkenstein on 29 Jun 2010 05:56 On Jun 29, 2:07�am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:35 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 27 June, 22:48, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 27, 5:18 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:31:26 -0700, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The > > > > > material is maether. > > > > > Maether has mass. > > > > > Aether and matter have mass. > > > > > Aether is uncompressed maether and matter is compressed maether. Aether > > > > > is displaced by matter. > > > > > In what muniverse? > > > just quoting the same stuff over and over again doesn't make you look > > smart > > > > Answer the following: > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). > > > what does "in the slits" mean? I guess what you mean is the twin slits > > experiment. A beam of small particles is "shone" onto an impervious > > surface. The surface is pierced by two narrow slits. A second screen > > stops the particles that get through the slits. The original > > experiment was done with light to try and answer the question "is > > light a bunch of little objects or a wave?". The answer seems to be a > > bit of both. If the slits are left unobstructed an interference > > pattern forms characteristic of a wave phenomenom. Implying each > > particle is somehow travelling though both slits or the particles are > > communicating to form the pattern. > > The moving particle has an associated wave. > The moving particle has an associated external wave. > The moving particle has an associated aether wave. > Replace "has" with "is" and you'll be getting closer. > > If a detector is placed near the > > slit each partical unambiguously only goes through one slit but the > > interference pattern vanishes. This implies light is made of little > > thingies. The same thing can be extended to any small particle. > > Electrons and protons exhibit wave like properties. And now macro > > molecules like C60 (aka a bucky ball) have also run the Young's slits > > guantlet. > > > > Detectors are placed at the exits. > > > The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. > > > a particular C60 unambiguously goes through one slit. > > If a C-60 molecule unambiguously goes through one slit what does it > interfere with, or do you choose not to believe in conservation of > momentum? > If a particle goes unambiguously through one slit, there is no longer an interference pattern observed. > What enters and exits multiple slits is the C-60 molecule's associated > aether displacement wave. > > > C60s go through > > both slits equally though. > > Correct. But each C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The > moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. It is > the aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiples slits, > creating interference upon exiting the slits which alters the > direction the C-60 molecule, which entered and exited a single slit, > travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the > associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) > and there is no interference. > > > Oh, and why the fascination with C60? Your exposition doesn't seem > > require C60 but anything small enough to show wave particle duality > > would do. > > Explain how a C-60 molecule enters, travels through and exits multiple > slits simultaneously without requiring energy releasing energy or > having a change in momentum. > > > > > > A C-60 > > > molecule is in the slit(s). > > > ? > > > > Detectors are placed and removed from the > > > exits to the slits. Repeat and the C-60 molecule creates an > > > interference pattern. > > > the detectors are moved far from the slits so you can no longer detect > > which slit a particular C60 went through > > What is the C-60 molecule, which exits a single slit, interfering > with? > > The direction the C-60 molecule travels is altered by the interference > created by its associated aether displacement wave. > > The analogy of a boat and its bow wave is correct. The bow wave exits > multiple slits and creates interference which alters the direction the > boat travels. Detecting the boat by placing buoys at the exits to the > slits causes decoherence of the bow wave (i.e. turns the bow wave into > chop) and there is no interference. > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > woo. I might admit to a Debroglie Pilot Wave but methinks you are > > beginning to make up your physics. > > '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 associated aether > wave and enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters and > exits the available slits. > > > > The > > > C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. > > > probably > > > >The > > > C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > > > experiment. > > > how do you know? > > Because it is always detected exiting a single slit. [...] You seem to miss the point of the double slit experiments. If one adds a detector or some method to determine which slit the particle has entered, the interference pattern disappears! > > ] > > There is zero evidence of the C-60 molecule exiting multiple slits. > The interference pattern is not evidence of the C-60 molecule exiting > multiple slits. Is is is :) > > Every double slit experiment ever performed has ALWAYS detected the > particle exiting a single slit. > No, only the ones that don't observe an interference pattern.
From: mpc755 on 29 Jun 2010 07:47 On Jun 29, 2:33�am, aganunitsi <ssyke...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 8:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > <entangled snip> > > The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment was discussed in a > thread... last month? Not only does it rely on superposition > (Copenhagen Interpretation) but also entanglement (Copenhagen > Interpretation). How does your aether displacement wave theory explain > entanglement? In order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum must be conserved. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. If you detected the spin of one photon then the pair will always be detected with opposite spin. Nothing is entangled. There is no delayed choice. Downgraded photon pairs always have opposite angular momentums. > What ties your aether displacement wave to any > particular particle, Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Matter and aether have mass. Aether is displaced by matter. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > even non-locally? So far you've only described > experiments that have/would give identical observable results, but you > claim "but I'm saying the result is occurring because of an aether > displacement wave, instead of superposition or entanglement as > predicted by quantum theory". What experiment would show a divergence > between the theories? I already mentioned placing a detector at the exit to one of the slits and firing a second particle across the front of the open slit. The aether wave exiting the open slit will alter the direction the second particle travels. 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_experiment 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. > Or will they always give identical results? And > no, you don't get to say "perform experiment x and result y will > demonstrate an aether displacement wave". That is not falsification. > Falsification requires "perform experiment x and result y cannot > happen if the aether displacement wave does exist but superposition > and/or entanglement do not exist". > I already mentioned placing a detector at the exit to one of the slits and firing a second particle across the front of the open slit. The aether wave exiting the open slit will alter the direction the second particle travels. The Copenhagen interpretation can not answer why the direction the second particle travels is altered. In the Copenhagen interpretation of QM all there is is the particle. Once the particle is detected that's it. In the Copenhagen interpretation of QM once the particle is detected, nothing exits the other slit. > If there is essentially no difference, then your aether wave theory is > just another statement of the pilot wave theory - been around for a > long time:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave > > The more modern version, the de Broglie Bohm theory, is completely > unnecessary, in the Occam's razor sense of unnecessary. The only way > to falsify the Copenhagen Interpretation in relation to the pilot wave > theory would be to prove that alternate universes exist (required in > pilot wave theory). Since these alternate universes can have no > observers, and we are observers, falsification by us is impossible.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation#Occam.27s_razor_crit... There is no alternate universe nonsense required in pilot wave theory. All that is required for pilot wave theory is an external field acting on the particle. The external field acting on the particle is the aether.
From: mpc755 on 29 Jun 2010 07:57
On Jun 29, 5:56�am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 2:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 10:35 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On 27 June, 22:48, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 27, 5:18 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:31:26 -0700, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The > > > > > > material is maether. > > > > > > Maether has mass. > > > > > > Aether and matter have mass. > > > > > > Aether is uncompressed maether and matter is compressed maether. Aether > > > > > > is displaced by matter. > > > > > > In what muniverse? > > > > just quoting the same stuff over and over again doesn't make you look > > > smart > > > > > Answer the following: > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). > > > > what does "in the slits" mean? I guess what you mean is the twin slits > > > experiment. A beam of small particles is "shone" onto an impervious > > > surface. The surface is pierced by two narrow slits. A second screen > > > stops the particles that get through the slits. The original > > > experiment was done with light to try and answer the question "is > > > light a bunch of little objects or a wave?". The answer seems to be a > > > bit of both. If the slits are left unobstructed an interference > > > pattern forms characteristic of a wave phenomenom. Implying each > > > particle is somehow travelling though both slits or the particles are > > > communicating to form the pattern. > > > The moving particle has an associated wave. > > The moving particle has an associated external wave. > > The moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > Replace "has" with "is" and you'll be getting closer. > Incorrect. The moving particle has an associated aether wave. The moving particle enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The associated aether wave enters and exits multiple slits. The aether wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave and there is no interference. There is a particle and a wave. For a photon and an electron, the 'particle' may consist of a very small region of the wave itself. For a photon and an electron stating the moving particle is an aether wave consisting of a very small region which is a wave may be correct. For something as large as a C-60 molecule, the moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > If a detector is placed near the > > > slit each partical unambiguously only goes through one slit but the > > > interference pattern vanishes. This implies light is made of little > > > thingies. The same thing can be extended to any small particle. > > > Electrons and protons exhibit wave like properties. And now macro > > > molecules like C60 (aka a bucky ball) have also run the Young's slits > > > guantlet. > > > > > Detectors are placed at the exits. > > > > The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. > > > > a particular C60 unambiguously goes through one slit. > > > If a C-60 molecule unambiguously goes through one slit what does it > > interfere with, or do you choose not to believe in conservation of > > momentum? > > If a particle goes unambiguously through one slit, there is no longer > an interference pattern observed. > Incorrect. The particle always enters and exits a single slit. The associated aether wave always enters and exits multiple slits. The associated aether wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave and there is no interference. > > > > What enters and exits multiple slits is the C-60 molecule's associated > > aether displacement wave. > > > > C60s go through > > > both slits equally though. > > > Correct. But each C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The > > moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. It is > > the aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiples slits, > > creating interference upon exiting the slits which alters the > > direction the C-60 molecule, which entered and exited a single slit, > > travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the > > associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) > > and there is no interference. > > > > Oh, and why the fascination with C60? Your exposition doesn't seem > > > require C60 but anything small enough to show wave particle duality > > > would do. > > > Explain how a C-60 molecule enters, travels through and exits multiple > > slits simultaneously without requiring energy releasing energy or > > having a change in momentum. > > > > > A C-60 > > > > molecule is in the slit(s). > > > > ? > > > > > Detectors are placed and removed from the > > > > exits to the slits. Repeat and the C-60 molecule creates an > > > > interference pattern. > > > > the detectors are moved far from the slits so you can no longer detect > > > which slit a particular C60 went through > > > What is the C-60 molecule, which exits a single slit, interfering > > with? > > > The direction the C-60 molecule travels is altered by the interference > > created by its associated aether displacement wave. > > > The analogy of a boat and its bow wave is correct. The bow wave exits > > multiple slits and creates interference which alters the direction the > > boat travels. Detecting the boat by placing buoys at the exits to the > > slits causes decoherence of the bow wave (i.e. turns the bow wave into > > chop) and there is no interference. > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > woo. I might admit to a Debroglie Pilot Wave but methinks you are > > > beginning to make up your physics. > > > '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 associated aether > > wave and enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters and > > exits the available slits. > > > > > The > > > > C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. > > > > probably > > > > >The > > > > C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > > > > experiment. > > > > how do you know? > > > Because it is always detected exiting a single slit. [...] > > You seem to miss the point of the double slit experiments. �If one > adds a detector or some method to determine which slit the particle > has entered, the interference pattern disappears! > Correct. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. > > > ] > > > There is zero evidence of the C-60 molecule exiting multiple slits. > > The interference pattern is not evidence of the C-60 molecule exiting > > multiple slits. > > Is is is :) > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether wave. > > > > Every double slit experiment ever performed has ALWAYS detected the > > particle exiting a single slit. > > No, only the ones that don't observe an interference pattern. An experiment is performed in order to determine if the particle exits a single slit or multiple slits in a double slit experiment. Every time the experiment has ever been performed the particle has always been detected exiting a single slit. This is experiment evidence the particle always exits a single slit. In the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM must you ignore experimental evidence. Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment? Because the particle always exits a single slit, duh! It is the associated aether wave which exits multiple slits. The associated aether wave creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. |