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: Nick Keighley on 29 Jun 2010 08:07 On 29 June, 01:07, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:35 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> > > 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: <snip> > > > 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. how do you know? What measurement can you perform to show this? Are they three different types of wave or three names for the same 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, there is no interference pattern in this case. So the C60 doesn't interfere with anything. > or do you choose not to believe in conservation of > momentum? > > What enters and exits multiple slits is the C-60 molecule's associated > aether displacement wave. > > > C60s go through both slits equally though. > > Correct. sorry I was just trying to clarify what you meant when you said "The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit". You are referring to a *particular* C60; you are not saying all the C60s go through the same slit. The experiment is usually arranged so roughly equal numbers go through each slit. > But each C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. depends on the experimental setup and the interpreation of QM you want to go with. > The > moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. It is > the aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiples slits, [REPETITION] you become tedious <snip> > > 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. but why C60? Why is this any more of a problem than for a photon or an electron? We don't really know what the C-60 does in this case. We have no measurement as to what travelled through the slit. This is cool:- www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf <snip> > > > 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? what is your experimental setup? The C60 is interfering with other C60s if you have an interference pattern <snip> > > > 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." did he call it an aether wave tho'? > "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. I thought initially de Broglie thought it was only a mathematical abstraction and not a description of real physics. I've always kind of liked the pilot wave. Copenhagen (particualrly in its more loony forms) has always bothered me. > 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. you'll have to talk to better physics people than me but I think there is experimental evidenc against your view. > > > 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. no it bloody isn't. You have no evidence that the particle went through only one slit in the case where you have interference. > I realize in the > absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM you must > disregard and ignore the experimental evidence of the particle ALWAYS > being detected in a double slit experiment. In Aether Displacement, > and in de Broglie wave mechanics the particle travels a single path. > > > > 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) > > > into *what*? > > Have you ever been to the beach on a windy day? yes. It's windy. Is this some nautical term? > > > and there is no interference. > > > There are other interpreattions of QM that don't involve collapse of > > the wave function. You seem to have a deBroglie crossed with a good > > old fashioned copenhagen. No Many-Worlds (Everett) then? > > > [side bar: > > > quantum mechanics is a highly mathematical theory of physics that > > effectivly tells you what you should observe for a particular setup. > > People want to assign some "meaning" to the equations and get > > themselves into a terrible tangle when they do. Copenhagen and Everett > > are two such interpretations they don't actually give different > > answers to the question "so what will I see if do this experiment?". > > But only to the "so what *actually* happened then?" question) > > > This is why I questioned how he knew the C60 had gone through only one > > of the slits. If you don't have a detector at the slit QM remains > > silent. Copenhagen says it goes through both. Everett says the > > universe forks into two new universes. In one it goes through the > > first slit in the other it goes through the second. We are in a random > > one of those two new universes. > > ] [REPETITION] <snip> > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > very definitely making it up now. Do you have a experiment that can > > show this? > > Gravity. sorry? "Gravity" is not an experiment. In what way does observing gravity (or rather its effects) demonstarte the existence of Aether? The existence of matter. The observed behaviors of a double > slit experiment. Atomic Bombs. you're going to have to expand on that > > > 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. > > > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > > > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. wow. <snip> > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > yes > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. > > > no, it's turned into radiation. Radiation has momentum. > > Mass does not convert to radiation. Mass is conserved. The transition > of matter to aether has momentum in the form of radiation. relativity disagrees > > > 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. > > > this aether is amazing it both acts as the pilot wave in QM *and* > > appears to be the space-time of GR. You have synthesised the formerly > > unsynthesised! I see its gravity that guides the C60 molecule! > > Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. is one end of a brontosaurus thick or thin? -- Nick Keighley
From: Mike Lyle on 29 Jun 2010 17:15 Androcles wrote: > "Mark Isaak" <eciton(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:pan.2010.06.27.21.17.55.126266(a)earthlink.net... >> 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? >> >> > The monoverse. No, the form with the greatest possible number: the perverse. -- Mike.
From: BURT on 29 Jun 2010 18:56 On Jun 29, 4:47�am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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_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. > > > 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. Somebody thinks they're smart because they know quantum mechanics? Ha.Ha.
From: John S. Wilkins on 29 Jun 2010 20:42 Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk(a)REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Androcles wrote: > > "Mark Isaak" <eciton(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:pan.2010.06.27.21.17.55.126266(a)earthlink.net... > >> 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? > >> > >> > > The monoverse. > > No, the form with the greatest possible number: the perverse. Well it's not the one we are in: the inverse. -- John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University http://evolvingthoughts.net But al be that he was a philosophre, Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
From: mpc755 on 29 Jun 2010 22:25
On Jun 29, 8:07 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 29 June, 01:07, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 10:35 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> > > > 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: > > <snip> > > > > > > > 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. > > how do you know? What measurement can you perform to show this? Are > they three different types of wave or three names for the same wave? > Every experiment performed to detect the particle exiting the slits in a double slit experiment has always detected the particle exiting a single slit. I understand in the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM this experimental evidence is ignored and disregarded in order to remain delusional. In real science an experiment which is performed which always detects the particle exiting a single slit is considered experiment evidence of the particle always exiting a single slit. There is zero evidence of the particle ever exiting both slits. The interference pattern is not evidence of the particle exiting both slits. The interference pattern is evidence of the associated aether wave exiting both slits and creating inteference which alters the direction the particle travels. How do we know there is an associated aether wave? Because every experiment ever performed has always detected the particle exiting a single slit. There is one wave. It is an aehter 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, > > there is no interference pattern in this case. So the C60 doesn't > interfere with anything. > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. All of the experimental evidence ever performed in any double slit experiment has always detected the particle exiting a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits, creating interference upon exiting the slits 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. > > or do you choose not to believe in conservation of > > momentum? > > > What enters and exits multiple slits is the C-60 molecule's associated > > aether displacement wave. > > > > C60s go through both slits equally though. > > > Correct. > > sorry I was just trying to clarify what you meant when you said "The > C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit". You are > referring to a *particular* C60; you are not saying all the C60s go > through the same slit. The experiment is usually arranged so roughly > equal numbers go through each slit. > Correct. Each and every C-60 molecule travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. In a 'double slit experiment' with C-60 molecules there is actually grating, not two slits. Each and every C-60 molecule travels a single individual path through the grating. > > But each C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. > > depends on the experimental setup and the interpreation of QM you want > to go with. > Incorrect. All of the experimental evidence ever performed in any double slit experiment has always detected the particle exiting a single slit. The absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM forces you to not only ignore the experimental evidence but forces you to choose to believe the opposite occurs when the experiment is not performed. In Aether Displacement the particle is always detected exiting a single slit because the particle always enters and exits a single slit. This interpretation of the observed behaviors in every double slit experiment ever performed is supported by all of the experimental evidence. > > The > > moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. It is > > the aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiples slits, > > [REPETITION] you become tedious > > <snip> > > > > 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. > > but why C60? Why is this any more of a problem than for a photon or an > electron? > A photon and electron 'particle' may actually exist as part of the aether wave itself. That is why I always place quotes around 'particle' when discussing a photon and an electron. The photon and electron 'particle' may consist of a very small region of the wave itself. The photon and electron 'particle' travels a single path and enters and exis a single slit. When you get to something as large as a C-60 molecule there is no reason for the quotes around particle. The moving C-60 molecule is a particle and it has an associated aether displacement wave. > We don't really know what the C-60 does in this case. We have no > measurement as to what travelled through the slit. > Of course we do. All of the experiments ever performed have always detected the particle exiting a single slit. This is experimental evidence of the particle always entering and exiting a single slit. The absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM forces you to ignore this experimental evidence. Not only ignore, but state the opposite occurs when the experiment is not performed. Absurd nonsense. > This is cool:-www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf > > <snip> > > > > > 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? > > what is your experimental setup? The C60 is interfering with other > C60s if you have an interference pattern > > <snip> > > > > > 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." > > did he call it an aether wave tho'? > I am. > > "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. > > I thought initially de Broglie thought it was only a mathematical > abstraction and not a description of real physics. I've always kind of > liked the pilot wave. Copenhagen (particualrly in its more loony > forms) has always bothered me. > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory' Louis de BROGLIE http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "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." "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, �, 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 �, 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." "Transposing this method to the double solution theory, it may be said that the particle moves in the internal space of a very slender tube, the walls of which are made up by an ensemble of the v wave's stream lines, so defining a hydrodynamical flow. As these stream lines follow from the velocity v of the guidance theory, the particle remains inside the tube during its motion, and the guidance law of the particle by the v wave results. 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. The 'hydrodynamical flow' is the associated aether wave. The aether behaves as a frictionless superfluid one-something. "Conclusion Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical extension. I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete." > > 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. > > you'll have to talk to better physics people than me but I think there > is experimental evidenc against your view. > > > > > 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. > > no it bloody isn't. You have no evidence that the particle went > through only one slit in the case where you have interference. > Every experiment ever performed which attempts to determine if the particle exits one slit or multiple slits has always detected the particle exiting a single slit. In science, this is experimental evidence of the particle always exiting a single slit. Only in the absurd nonsnese of the Copenhangen interpretation of QM must you not only ignore the experimental evidence but be so dilusional as to insist the opposite occurs when the experiment is not performed. > > I realize in the > > absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM you must > > disregard and ignore the experimental evidence of the particle ALWAYS > > being detected in a double slit experiment. In Aether Displacement, > > and in de Broglie wave mechanics the particle travels a single path. > > > > > 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) > > > > into *what*? > > > Have you ever been to the beach on a windy day? > > yes. It's windy. Is this some nautical term? > An ocean wave is turned into chop by the wind. Detecting a particle causes decoherence of the associated wave. A boat enters and exits a single slit. The boats bow wave exits the slits and alters the direction the boat travels. Placing buoys at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated bow wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. > > > > > > and there is no interference. > > > > There are other interpreattions of QM that don't involve collapse of > > > the wave function. You seem to have a deBroglie crossed with a good > > > old fashioned copenhagen. No Many-Worlds (Everett) then? > > > > [side bar: > > > > quantum mechanics is a highly mathematical theory of physics that > > > effectivly tells you what you should observe for a particular setup. > > > People want to assign some "meaning" to the equations and get > > > themselves into a terrible tangle when they do. Copenhagen and Everett > > > are two such interpretations they don't actually give different > > > answers to the question "so what will I see if do this experiment?". > > > But only to the "so what *actually* happened then?" question) > > > > This is why I questioned how he knew the C60 had gone through only one > > > of the slits. If you don't have a detector at the slit QM remains > > > silent. Copenhagen says it goes through both. Everett says the > > > universe forks into two new universes. In one it goes through the > > > first slit in the other it goes through the second. We are in a random > > > one of those two new universes. > > > ] > > [REPETITION] > > <snip> > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > > very definitely making it up now. Do you have a experiment that can > > > show this? > > > Gravity. > > sorry? "Gravity" is not an experiment. In what way does observing > gravity (or rather its effects) demonstarte the existence of Aether? > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. Gravity is also the reason for the Casimir Effect. The aether displaced by each plate extends past the other plate. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the plates forces the plates together. > The existence of matter. The observed behaviors of a double > > > slit experiment. Atomic Bombs. > > you're going to have to expand on that > "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. When you watch a video of an atomic bomb exploding you are watching the physical effects matter has transitioning to aether. Matter increases in volume as it transitions to aether. The physical effect this increase in volume has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. > > > > 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. > > > > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > > > > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. > > wow. > Exactly. > <snip> > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > yes > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. > > > > no, it's turned into radiation. Radiation has momentum. > > > Mass does not convert to radiation. Mass is conserved. The transition > > of matter to aether has momentum in the form of radiation. > > relativity disagrees > Relativity agrees. '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 ... disregarding the causes which condition its state". 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. The cause which conditions the aether's state is its displacement by matter. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. |