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 29 Jun 2010 22:40 On Jun 29, 10:25�pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 BROGLIEhttp://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. Correction: Missing end quote: "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.
From: Nick Keighley on 30 Jun 2010 10:18 On 30 June, 03:25, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 8:07 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> > > 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: I'm going to appy my Repeated Position Rule. If we keep on saying the same stuff over and over again then it's a stalemate. This handily disposes of many tedious conversations. > > > > > 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? you failed to address the questions. So, are there three different waves or three names for the same thing? > Every experiment performed to detect the particle exiting the slits in > a double slit experiment has always detected the particle exiting a > single slit. no. All the experiments that placed the detectors near the slits detected the C60 at one slit. Look, I know anything other than your view defies Common Sense but this is physics. You have to admit that *something* odd is going on, marbles and footballs don't show wave- like properties so why do bucky-balls? > I understand in the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen > interpretation of QM I'm not particularly wedded to Copenhagen but you are inferring things you can't actually observe. What about Many Worlds? <snip> > There is zero evidence of the particle ever exiting both slits. The > interference pattern is not evidence of the particle exiting both > slits. it's evidence that *something* went though both slits. You have no experimental evidence for your magic aether wave. > 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. <yawn> > There is one wave. It is an aehter wave. ah, is that an answer to the "how many waves are there?" question? If so why the silly name? <snip> mostly repetition > > > > 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. why? I don't see why they're magically different > 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. <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. why? The last time aether was in use it meant something utterly different. <snip> > > > 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 BROGLIEhttp://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." ok, I was wrong > "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, is this you or de Broglie ? > 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." <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. thats a claim not an experiment. What experimental evidence is there that aether and matter are different states of the same material. Or even that aether exists? > Gravity is also the reason for the Casimir Effect. bollocks it is > 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. <snip> > > > > > 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. I should insert more sarcasm markers <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.
From: funkenstein on 30 Jun 2010 11:23 On Jun 29, 1:57�pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > 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. > That is a modified double slit experiment. Try Feynman's lectures on physics for an introduction. or even: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment : "Any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a photon passes through destroys the interference pattern" > Every > time the experiment has ever been performed the particle has always > been detected exiting a single slit. What experiment are you talking about? The classical double slit experiment explicitly has no means of determining which slit an individual particle goes through. If you are referring to a specific experiment you should be more clear. > 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? Which modified double slit experiment are you talking about?
From: Bob Casanova on 30 Jun 2010 15:59 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:42:13 +1000, the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by john(a)wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins): >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. As for mpc755's word salad, I'd go with blank verse. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
From: mpc755 on 30 Jun 2010 19:16
On Jun 30, 10:18�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 30 June, 03:25, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 8:07 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> > > > 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: > > I'm going to appy my Repeated Position Rule. If we keep on saying the > same stuff over and over again then it's a stalemate. This handily > disposes of many tedious conversations. > > > > > > > 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? > > you failed to address the questions. So, are there three different > waves or three names for the same thing? > A moving particle has an associated aether 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. > > no. All the experiments that placed the detectors near the slits > detected the C60 at one slit. Look, I know anything other than your > view defies Common Sense but this is physics. You have to admit that > *something* odd is going on, marbles and footballs don't show wave- > like properties so why do bucky-balls? > A fish and a dolphin are in the water. Above them a boat enters and exits a single slit. Upon exiting the slit the boat immediately alters its direction and arrives on shore. The boat does this over and over again and the boat makes an interference pattern on the shore. The fish, who doesn't realize they exist in water, insists the boat created the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself. The dolphin, who realizes they exist in water, insists it was the boats bow wave that exited both slits and created interference which altered the direction the boat travels. The fish insists the dolphin has to admit that *something* odd is going on. What is the dolphin to do? The dolphin knows there is nothing odd going odd at all. It is simply the bow wave exiting the slit and creating interference which alters the direction the boat travels. But wait, says the fish. If we place buoys in front of the boat in order to detect it exiting a single slit then the boat does not create an interference pattern on the shore. Yes, replies the dolphin, the buoys destroy the coherence of the bow wave exiting the slits (i.e. turns the bow wave into chop) and there is no interference. The fish continues to insist *something* odd is going on. The fish is going to invoke their Repeated Position Rule. What is the dolphin to do but to wait for the fish, who is unable to realize they exist in water, to invoke the Repeated Position Rule. > > I understand in the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen > > interpretation of QM > > I'm not particularly wedded to Copenhagen but you are inferring things > you can't actually observe. What about Many Worlds? > If you choose to be a fish who is unable to understand you exist in water there is nothing I can do to help you understand the physics of nature. Gravity waves are aether waves. > <snip> > > > There is zero evidence of the particle ever exiting both slits. The > > interference pattern is not evidence of the particle exiting both > > slits. > > it's evidence that *something* went though both slits. You have no > experimental evidence for your magic aether wave. > > > 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. > > <yawn> > > > There is one wave. It is an aehter wave. > > ah, is that an answer to the "how many waves are there?" question? If > so why the silly name? > > <snip> mostly repetition > > > > > > 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. > > why? I don't see why they're magically different > > > 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. > > <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. > > why? The last time aether was in use it meant something utterly > different. > > <snip> > > > > > 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 BROGLIEhttp://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." > > ok, I was wrong > > > "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, > > is this you or de Broglie ? > de Broglie: "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." mpc755: The 'hydrodynamical flow' is the associated aether wave. The aether behaves as a frictionless superfluid one-something. > > 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." > > <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. > > thats a claim not an experiment. What experimental evidence is there > that aether and matter are different states of the same material. Or > even that aether exists? > > > Gravity is also the reason for the Casimir Effect. > > bollocks it is > It is obvious you are incapable of understanding the physics of nature. Invoke your repetition rule. > > 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. > > <snip> > > > > > > > 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. > > I should insert more sarcasm markers > > <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. > > |