From: mpc755 on
On May 11, 11:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 10:05 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the
> > > > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected
> > > > > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future
> > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the physics of nature.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent
> > > > > > > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a
> > > > > > > > > > single slit.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always
> > > > > > > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the
> > > > > > > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should
> > > > > > > > > happen.
>
> > > > > > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs.
>
> > > > > > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it.
> > > > > > > And it does.
> > > > > > > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another
> > > > > > > factual error.
>
> > > > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in
> > > > > > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future
> > > > > > > > determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it,
> > > > > > > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed
> > > > > > > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you
> > > > > > > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this?
>
> > > > > > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small
> > > > > > > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and
> > > > > > > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the
> > > > > > > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all.
>
> > > > > > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the
> > > > > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your
> > > > > > answer is the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > > No one else on this forum can even answer the question.
>
> > > > > Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the
> > > > > question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality.
>
> > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of
> > > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past.
>
> > > No one else answers it because hardly anyone with any sense talks to
> > > you at all.
>
> > There must be at least 5000 physicists in the world. At least 99% of
> > them believe what experiments show, not what some mentally ill loner
> > asserts.
>
> > PD, why do you bother conversing with this megalomaniac who lives in
> > his own solipsistic world? Is it obsessive-compulsive disorder?
>
> Yes, I believe it is! I shall have to work on it.

You should also work on answering the following with an answer that
does not require the future to determine the past. You should also
work on understanding what experimental evidence is. If a C-60
molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit in a double slit
experiment this is evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS exits a single
slit.

For all you Copenhageners out there:

A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits
to the slits. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single
slit. A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed and
removed from the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule creates an
interference pattern in and of itself.

How is this possible?

It isn't.

The C-60 molecule does not create an interference pattern in and of
itself. The C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because it
ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. When the associated 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 wave (i.e. turns it into
chop) and there is no interference.
From: Stupidschit Hanson on
On May 11, 7:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 9:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 11, 8:24 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the physics of nature.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a
> > > > > > > > > > > > single slit.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always
> > > > > > > > > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the
> > > > > > > > > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should
> > > > > > > > > > > happen.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it.
> > > > > > > > > And it does.
> > > > > > > > > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another
> > > > > > > > > factual error.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in
> > > > > > > > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future
> > > > > > > > > > determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it,
> > > > > > > > > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed
> > > > > > > > > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you
> > > > > > > > > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this?
>
> > > > > > > > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small
> > > > > > > > > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and
> > > > > > > > > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the
> > > > > > > > > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all.
>
> > > > > > > > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the
> > > > > > > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your
> > > > > > > > answer is the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > > No one else on this forum can even answer the question.
>
> > > > > > > Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the
> > > > > > > question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality.
>
> > > > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of
> > > > > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > No one else answers it because hardly anyone with any sense talks to
> > > > > you at all.
>
> > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of
> > > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past.
>
> > > > Let's try it again and see what occurs
>
> > > Yes, let's. It's my theory that hardly anyone with any sense likes to
> > > talk with you at all. This leads to the prediction that no one will
> > > answer your question. Let's see if my theory is supported by
> > > experimental results.
>
> > We can add this to your list of experimental results you can not
> > interpret correctly.
>
> Perhaps. Then, you see, what science would do is to take the two
> theories, mine and yours about why you don't get any explanations upon
> your whining demands, and see if there is an experimental test where
> the two theories would DISAGREE on the measurable result. Here, the
> measurable result for the two theories is the same: you'll get no
> answers.
>
> So what would you propose for an experimental test to *distinguish*
> the two theories why you don't get explanations? Consider it an
> exercise learning how to do things scientifically.

Of course I agree completely...

With MPC!
From: PD on
On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 11:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 10:05 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the physics of nature.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent
> > > > > > > > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a
> > > > > > > > > > > single slit.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always
> > > > > > > > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the
> > > > > > > > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should
> > > > > > > > > > happen.
>
> > > > > > > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs.
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it.
> > > > > > > > And it does.
> > > > > > > > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another
> > > > > > > > factual error.
>
> > > > > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in
> > > > > > > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future
> > > > > > > > > determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it,
> > > > > > > > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed
> > > > > > > > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you
> > > > > > > > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this?
>
> > > > > > > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small
> > > > > > > > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and
> > > > > > > > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the
> > > > > > > > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all.
>
> > > > > > > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the
> > > > > > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your
> > > > > > > answer is the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > No one else on this forum can even answer the question.
>
> > > > > > Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the
> > > > > > question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality.
>
> > > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of
> > > > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past.
>
> > > > No one else answers it because hardly anyone with any sense talks to
> > > > you at all.
>
> > > There must be at least 5000 physicists in the world. At least 99% of
> > > them believe what experiments show, not what some mentally ill loner
> > > asserts.
>
> > > PD, why do you bother conversing with this megalomaniac who lives in
> > > his own solipsistic world? Is it obsessive-compulsive disorder?
>
> > Yes, I believe it is! I shall have to work on it.
>
> You should also work on answering the following with an answer that
> does not require the future to determine the past.

Why? The model accounts for all the experimental evidence. It works
just fine.

> You should also
> work on understanding what experimental evidence is. If a C-60
> molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit in a double slit
> experiment this is evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS exits a single
> slit.

No, it isn't. Sorry, it just isn't. It is evidence that the molecule
exits a single slit *when* there is a detector there -- nothing more,
nothing less. The presence or absence of the detector changes that
claim.

Time for you to read up on how this is possible. Would you like a
reference to a really good book on this?

PD

From: mpc755 on
On May 11, 11:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 9:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 11, 8:24 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the physics of nature.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a
> > > > > > > > > > > > single slit.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always
> > > > > > > > > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the
> > > > > > > > > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should
> > > > > > > > > > > happen.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it.
> > > > > > > > > And it does.
> > > > > > > > > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another
> > > > > > > > > factual error.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in
> > > > > > > > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future
> > > > > > > > > > determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it,
> > > > > > > > > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed
> > > > > > > > > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you
> > > > > > > > > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this?
>
> > > > > > > > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small
> > > > > > > > > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and
> > > > > > > > > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the
> > > > > > > > > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all.
>
> > > > > > > > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the
> > > > > > > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your
> > > > > > > > answer is the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > > No one else on this forum can even answer the question.
>
> > > > > > > Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the
> > > > > > > question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality.
>
> > > > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of
> > > > > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > No one else answers it because hardly anyone with any sense talks to
> > > > > you at all.
>
> > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of
> > > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past.
>
> > > > Let's try it again and see what occurs
>
> > > Yes, let's. It's my theory that hardly anyone with any sense likes to
> > > talk with you at all. This leads to the prediction that no one will
> > > answer your question. Let's see if my theory is supported by
> > > experimental results.
>
> > We can add this to your list of experimental results you can not
> > interpret correctly.
>
> Perhaps. Then, you see, what science would do is to take the two
> theories, mine and yours about why you don't get any explanations upon
> your whining demands, and see if there is an experimental test where
> the two theories would DISAGREE on the measurable result. Here, the
> measurable result for the two theories is the same: you'll get no
> answers.
>

The measure result is the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a
single slit. This is experimental evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS
exits a single slit. What is causing you confusion is the interference
pattern the C-60 molecule creates when it is not detected. Since you
fail to realize the moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether
displacement wave you go back and insist the C-60 molecule interferes
with itself when not detected. This is not supported by the
experimental evidence where the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected
exiting a single slit. What you have done is you have had to make
stuff up to fit the observed behaviors. You are actually undermining
the experimental evidence with your inability to understand a moving
C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave and the C-60
molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit, which IS supported by
the experimental evidence.

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.

> So what would you propose for an experimental test to *distinguish*
> the two theories why you don't get explanations? Consider it an
> exercise learning how to do things scientifically.

From: mpc755 on
On May 11, 11:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 11:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 11, 10:05 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the physics of nature.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a
> > > > > > > > > > > > single slit.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always
> > > > > > > > > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the
> > > > > > > > > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should
> > > > > > > > > > > happen.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it.
> > > > > > > > > And it does.
> > > > > > > > > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another
> > > > > > > > > factual error.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in
> > > > > > > > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future
> > > > > > > > > > determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it,
> > > > > > > > > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed
> > > > > > > > > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you
> > > > > > > > > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this?
>
> > > > > > > > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small
> > > > > > > > > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and
> > > > > > > > > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the
> > > > > > > > > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all.
>
> > > > > > > > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the
> > > > > > > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your
> > > > > > > > answer is the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > > No one else on this forum can even answer the question.
>
> > > > > > > Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the
> > > > > > > question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality.
>
> > > > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of
> > > > > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > No one else answers it because hardly anyone with any sense talks to
> > > > > you at all.
>
> > > > There must be at least 5000 physicists in the world. At least 99% of
> > > > them believe what experiments show, not what some mentally ill loner
> > > > asserts.
>
> > > > PD, why do you bother conversing with this megalomaniac who lives in
> > > > his own solipsistic world? Is it obsessive-compulsive disorder?
>
> > > Yes, I believe it is! I shall have to work on it.
>
> > You should also work on answering the following with an answer that
> > does not require the future to determine the past.
>
> Why? The model accounts for all the experimental evidence. It works
> just fine.
>

In any double slit experiment the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting
a single slit. This is experimental evidence the particle ALWAYS exits
a single slit. Your model does not support the experimental evidence.

The measured result is the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting
a single slit. This is experimental evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS
exits a single slit. What is causing you confusion is the interference
pattern the C-60 molecule creates when it is not detected. Since you
fail to realize the moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether
displacement wave you go back and insist the C-60 molecule interferes
with itself when not detected. This is not supported by the
experimental evidence where the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected
exiting a single slit. What you have done is you have had to make
stuff up to fit the observed behaviors. You are actually undermining
the experimental evidence with your inability to understand a moving
C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave and the C-60
molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit, which IS supported by
the experimental evidence.

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.

> > You should also
> > work on understanding what experimental evidence is. If a C-60
> > molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit in a double slit
> > experiment this is evidence the C-60 molecule ALWAYS exits a single
> > slit.
>
> No, it isn't. Sorry, it just isn't. It is evidence that the molecule
> exits a single slit *when* there is a detector there -- nothing more,
> nothing less. The presence or absence of the detector changes that
> claim.
>
> Time for you to read up on how this is possible. Would you like a
> reference to a really good book on this?
>
> PD