Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The purpose of the Peano Axioms
Next: Abbreviating First Order Logic With Identity and Membership
From: PD on 11 May 2010 11:22 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.
From: mpc755 on 11 May 2010 11:23 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 11 May 2010 11:24 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 11 May 2010 11:27 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 11 May 2010 11:29
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. |